KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 46 APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Housing Typology
The City of Avenal has 2,878 housing units and a population of 3,901 according to Table 1. From 1990 to 2020, Avenal’s population has increased by 70.9%. As seen in Table 25, the number of housing units in Avenal increased by 62% over the span of 30 years.
Avenal has not kept up with the project housing needs over time. However, it has implemented density bonuses for developers. The amount of 5+ units increased from 2010 to 2020; 433 units to 516 units, close to a 20% increase. Notably, building permit authorization data is available for 2019 and the City of Avenal did not have 5+ unit structures on record.
Close to half of Avenal’s housing stock is 3-bedroom units, followed by 2-bedroom units, and then 4- bedroom units. Studio and 1-bedroom units make up 3.5% of the housing stock. In 2010, Avenal had 31 units of 5+ bedrooms; in 2020, there are 0 recorded 5+ bedroom units. As seen on Table XX, Avenal consists of 12.6% of 2-person family households and 11.9% of 1-person nonfamily households, for a total of
24.5%. These two households’ housing needs can be met well by studio and 1-bedroom units but there are only 3.5% of those units within Avenal’s housing stock. There may be units where multiple 2-person family or 1-person nonfamily households are sharing housing units for affordability, thus removing larger units off the market for larger family households. Therefore, additional studio and 1-bedroom units should be incentivized.
In contrast, Avenal has a larger share of large households, 5 or more people, compared to Kings County and California; large households make up 33% of Avenal’s households. Large households make up 19.1% of Kings County households and 13.7% of California households. Housing needs for these households can be met well by 4+ bedroom units. However, they only make up 12.4% of Avenal’s housing stock.
Table 25: Total Housing Units Over Time
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Units 1,311 1,776 2,061 2,410 2,878
Percent Change 35.47% 16.05% 16.93% 19.42%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T65), 1990(STF1:H1), 2000(SF1:H1); ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B2001
Table 26: Total Housing Units by Type
Over Time
2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2020 Percent
Total 3,513 2,314 2,878
1, Detached 2,178 62.0% 1,466 63.4% 1,860 64.6%
1, Attached 118 3.4% 32 1.4% 86 3.0%
2 221 6.3% 75 3.2% 48 1.7%
3 or 4 409 11.6% 310 13.4% 215 7.5%
5 to 9 366 10.4% 209 9.0% 258 9.0%
10 to 19 0 0.0% 57 2.5% 177 6.2%
20 to 49 19 0.5% 10 0.4% 0 0.0%
50 or More 48 1.4% 24 1.0% 81 2.8%
Mobile Home 154 4.4% 131 5.7% 153 5.3%
Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 47 APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Total Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms (2020)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25041
Table 27: Building Permits by Number of Structures Authorized Number of Structures
Authorized
City of
Avenal
City of
Avenal
Kings
County
Kings
County California California
One Housing Unit 17 100.0% 300 98.7% 56,085 94.6%
Two Housing Units 0 0.0% 1 0.3% 1,210 2.0%
Three and Four Housing Units 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 470 0.8%
Five or More Housing Units 0 0.0% 3 1.0% 1,512 2.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey 2019, Table AD:T2
Table 28: Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
City of
Avenal Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total: 2,752 43,604 13,103,114
2014 Or Later 74 2.7% 1,414 2.7% 294,667 2.2%
2010 To 2013 28 1.0% 1,057 1.0% 234,646 1.8%
2000 To 2009 683 24.8% 7,557 24.8% 1,432,955 11.0%
1990 To 1999 422 15.3% 8,348 15.3% 1,448,367 11.1%
1980 To 1989 349 12.7% 6,287 12.7% 1,967,306 15.1%
1970 To 1979 479 17.4% 6,621 17.4% 2,290,081 17.5%
1960 To 1969 277 10.1% 4,424 10.1% 1,740,922 13.3%
1950 To 1959 103 3.7% 3,156 3.7% 1,767,353 13.5%
1940 To 1949 132 4.8% 2,122 4.8% 763,029 5.8%
1939 Or Earlier 205 7.4% 2,618 7.4% 1,163,788 8.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036
I
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 48 APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Local Median Housing Costs
In the City of Avenal , the median monthly housing costs is $840. For the wider Kings County, the median cost is higher at $1,094. In contrast, California's median is significantly higher at $1,688. From 2010 to 2020, the City of Avenal’s median monthly housing cost increased by 25.6%, compared to Kings County at 14%.
California’s rate of increase is more than double Hanford’s rate at 19.8%. The City of Avenal saw the highest percentage increase in median housing costs compared to Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran which experienced increases of less than 10%.
In Avenal, the median monthly owner cost with a mortgage as a percentage of household income is 15. 1% and 9% for those homeowners without a mortgage. The percentage that renters spend is much higher at 29.1% which is just shy of the acceptable standard to spend on housing, one third of income. However, as seen below, overcrowding and overpayment is an issue in Avenal . It is important to note that these figures are medians.
The following sections provide further context of fair and affordable housing by anal yzing overcrowding, overpayment, and homelessness.
Table 29: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time
2010 2015 2020 Percent Change
(2010 to 2020)
City of Avenal $669 $768 $840 25.6%
Kings County $960 $978 $1,094 14.0%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105
Table 30: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 33.0% 36.9% 29.1%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Total 18.0% 27.6% 13.7% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units with a Mortgage 22.7% 30.6% 15.1% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units without a Mortgage 10.0% 10.0% 9.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens; and to be severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of adequate income for housing.
Table 31 details the percentage of households that live in overcrowded situations. Overcrowding is more prevalent among renters than owners. For example, countywide, 12% of renters and 5% of owners reported more than one person per room. The difference between renters and owner overcrowding on the overall
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 49 APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
where Avenal showed the highest percentage of total households (renters and owners) living in overcrowded conditions at 17 in 2020.
Table 31: Overcrowding by Tenure
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014
The overcrowding data for Avenal and Kings County, based on the Census ACS 2016-2020, reveals a higher incidence of overcrowding in Avenal compared to the broader county. In Avenal, only 36.0% of owner- occupied households have 0.50 or fewer occupants per room, significantly lower than Kings County's
60.7%. For renter-occupied households, the situation is more severe in Avenal, with 21.6% at 0.50 or fewer occupants per room, compared to 39.7% in Kings County. Overcrowding beyond 20% is prevalent in Avenal, especially in its predominant tracts, with 2.5-2.6% of units being severely overcrowded. In contrast, the upper regions of Avenal experience less overcrowding, with 5.19-10% of crowded units and less than
2.5% severely overcrowded units.
Overpayment
State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower-income households that have limited resources for other living expenses.
As shown in Table 32 , a significant portion of lower -income households in each community overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). However, the overpayment rate varied by tenure and income level. More than half of all very- low- and extremely-low- income households in all jurisdictions, both owners and renters, were reported to be overpaying. In most communities, however, more rental households than owner households were overpaying. Few households with incomes above the median faced overpayment – often less than 10% of households.
Occupants per Room Avenal Kings County
Total households 2,752 43,604
Owner occupied: 1,306 23,368
0.50 or less 36.0% 60.70%
0.51 to 1.00 48.9% 34.20%
1.01 to 1.50 15.2% 3.90%
1.51 to 2.00 0.0% 0.70%
2.01 or more 0.0% 0.50%
Renter occupied: 1,446 20,236
0.50 or less 21.6% 39.70%
0.51 to 1.00 60.2% 48.10%
1.01 to 1.50 13.8% 8.70%
1.51 to 2.00 4.4% 2.90%
2.01 or more 0.0% 0.60%
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 50 APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Table 32: Household Overpayment by Tenure
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
Figures 16 and 17, based on HUD data, highlight the patterns of housing cost overpayment in Avenal. Renters on the city's edges face relatively lower overpayment rates, ranging between 20-40%, and even lesser, below 20%, at the northernmost tip. In contrast, homeowners on the edges experience higher overpayment, between 40 and 60%. Central areas of Avenal show a moderate overpayment rate for homeowners, ranging from 20 to 40%. This data suggests a geographical variation in housing affordability within Avena l, with differing financial burdens for renters and homeowners across the city.
Avenal’s Program 1.10 Affordable Housing Assistance implements various strategies to continue the construction of affordable housing. The City seeks applicable grants from state and federal sources including funding specifically targeted to ELI housing, provide an inventory of housing sites to interested developers, continue to provide a density bonus to qualifying projects, and continue to pursue housing production and rehabilitation with nonprofits including assistance in preparing grant applications. Housing for very-low- and extremely-low-income households will be prioritized where feasible. In addition, the City’s affordable housing incentives will be promoted on the website and in handouts provided at the Planning counter.
Income Category Avenal Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 82.4% 79.00%
>30% to <=50% 86.7% 68.60%
>50% to <=80% 6.8% 48.30%
>80% to <=100% 17.4% 32.80%
>100% 0.0% 7.40%
Total 15.7% 22.50%
Renters
<= 30% 81.9% 79.30%
>30% to <=50% 68.1% 78.30%
>50% to <=80% 52.1% 57.00%
>80% to <=100% 0.0% 22.50%
>100% 0.0% 6.40%
Total 56.1% 43.20%
SECTION 1A-3: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 15: Overcrowding in Kings County
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 Legend
D C.ensu, Tract Doundary
CmP.S In Klnos C'flunty
c::::J A..,..,ria l
[=1 O.m.:ur,un
D Hanford
D Lemoore
D Qty lloundar lcs
APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Figure 16: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 ant
ey
Hi II s
cbalinba
L__j Polvadero
Gap
FRE SNO G0llJ Nili/il
.. 1350 ft
17.03 16.01
Legend
D rP.nsus Tr~c.t Aounc1nry
Cit ies in Kings County
D /\venal
D Corcomn
D l lanford
D Lemoore
D City Boundar ies
D CA county
Overpayment by Renters (2017-2 0 21) - ACS Tract
Level
Percent of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent
(Contract Rent Plus Tenant-Paid Utlll~es) Is 30.0
PE,Jrc P.111 rn Mou-! of Hrni~P.ll[)lrl lrK.m ru-~
< 2 0°/o
- 20% - 40%
- 40% - 60%
- 60% - 80%
- > 80%
APPENDIX 2: CITY OF AVENAL
Figure 17: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 ----------:-:-~:---------------- iv,~------: ]~:i------ /2~7 Leyend a n t H i I I s ro ~ □ Ce,,s~s " "'' ll<mnda,y
Tu rk "" ===::-;~
ey D ~,- ~ Coa1nga ro
L__j Po lvadero
Gap
FRESNO COUNTY
~INGS G0l!JNili i'i'o
A
1350 ft
16.01 VJ
0 ...
~
► < ro
Clli...s ir1 Kin usf.t)I J111•,
c:::::J Av+m;il
r::::J C"'.on:1u;111
c:::J H,111rnul
c::::J I l-!UW:.tlll-!
~ City Ro11ndariE>S
D CA county
P\::!rr.P.nt nt Owrl!"f" HotJ~old!=. w it h Mortqagi:-s ,'Vho!.! Moulhly UVtrtc't' l.Ai!;Ui ~r ~ JO% Of Mo,i:c> of I lousi:,l1t.1~ Jr.::.omc
< 20%
20% - 10%
- 4U% · 00%
- OU% · 80%
. ,,tl()%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
54 Homelessness
Homelessness is often the result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and high housing costs lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For others, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long-term support needed to address these conditions. Obtaining a n accurate assessment of the magnitude of the homeless population is difficult because many individuals are not visibly homeless but rather live with relatives or friends, in hotels/motels or shelters, and other temporary accommodations. To address the needs of homeless people in Kings County, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) survey of homeless people in these two counties in January 2022. The study used HUD’s definition of homelessness, which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation such as cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.
Table 33: Homeless Persons
Jurisdiction Estimated Homeless
Avenal 4
Corcoran 17
Hanford 260
Lemoore 8
Unincorporated area 24
Kings County totals 313
Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance Point-in-Time Survey, 2022
Based on the 2022 PIT survey, the following portrait of the 313 homeless individuals counted in Kings County included:
• 22% chronically homeless
• 39% persons with disability
• 20% suffer from mental disability.
• 12% suffer from substance abuse problems.
• 11% victims of domestic violence
• 6% veterans
• 2% unaccompanied children
• 12% young adults under age 25
In 2022, 39% of the homeless population was housed in temporary living arrangements (31% in emergency shelter and 8% in transitional housing). Over half (61%) were unsheltered and homeless or in a car.
Table 33 presents the 2022 PIT homeless counts for the four cities and unincorporated areas of the County.
The table shows that the City of Hanford had the highest counted with 260 homeless individuals or 83% of the countywide total. This was followed by the unincorporated area with 24 homeless individuals. Avenal had the lowest count with four homeless individuals.
++
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
55 Table 34: Shelter Facilities in Kings County
Source: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023
Table 34 lists the shelter facilities in Kings County that served the homeless. It identifies an inventory of 126 emergency shelter beds (78% use rate), 27 transitional housing beds (89% use rate), 64 permanent supportive housing beds (89% use rate), 15 other permanent housing beds (93% use rate), and 103 rapid rehousing beds (100% use rate) in Kings County. Additional emergency assistance is provided by the Salvation Army in Hanford, which provides short -term assistance in the form of food, financial assistance for rent and utility bills, motel vouchers and bus or plane tickets. Corcoran Christian Aid provides food, vouchers, and other types of emergency financial assistance within Corcoran.
Total
Project Name & Organization
PIT
Beds
Use
Count
Use
Rate
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Barbara Saville Shelter - DV 15 4 27%
Barbara Saville Woman's Shelter 23 6 26%
EHA Kings 7 7 100%
PRK Holiday Lodge 57 57 100%
PRK Stardust Hotel 17 17 100%
Temporary Housing Program 7 7 100%
Total 126 98 78%
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
KGM Men's Transitional 15 15 100%
KGM Women's Transitional 6 6 100%
New Song Academy 6 3 50%
Total 27 24 89%
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Anchors II 6 4 67%
Anchors IV 6 5 83%
Grace Homes 13 13 100%
Hope Survives 6 6 100%
Kings County Act 28 28 100%
Kings VASH 5 1 20%
Total 64 57 89%
OTHER PERMANENT HOUSING
HAKC Emergency Housing Voucher 15 14 93%
Total 15 14 93%
RAPID REHOUSING
Bringing Families Home 16 16 100%
HANA 4 4 100%
Housing Support Program 76 76 100%
Kings Rapid Rehousing 1 1 100%
RRH4 Kings 6 6 100%
Total 103 103 100%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
56 Despite these services, a significant shortage in emergency shelters and transitional housing remains. In 2007 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2, which strengthened the planning and zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional /supportive housing. SB2 requires that all jurisdictions adopt zoning regulations that allow emergency shelters by -right in at least one zone, subject to objective development standards, or as an alternative, the jurisdiction may meet the need through a mul ti-jurisdictional agreement with up to three adjacent jurisdictions. As noted in the Constraints section, all of the jurisdictions in Kings County have adopted zoning regulations for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing in response to SB 2.
Avenal Program 1.13 Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing objective is to continue the establishment of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Avenal permits emergency shelters in the High-Density Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zone. Transitional/supportive housing is permitted as a residential use subject to the same regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type, in the same zone, consistent with state law.
Displacement Risk
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census tract level.
The EDR provides three layers of displacement information. The “Overall Displacement” map layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. The dark red tracts (2 income groups), our models estimate displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “Probable”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “Probable Displacement”. In figure 18 it could be observed the city of Avenal is "At risk of displacement" refers to the likelihood of residents, particularly low-income renter households, being forced to move out of their neighborhoods due to various factors. This concept is often evaluated in the context of gentrification, rising housing costs, and changing neighborhood dynamics.
According to the Urban Displacement Project's Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California, displacement risk is determined by evaluating census tract characteristics that are strongly correlated with a net loss of low-income renter populations. Essentially, a high displacement risk suggests that more low-income households are leaving a neighborhood than moving in, often due to factors like affordability, development pressures, or changes in the housing market.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 18: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), UCB – Urban Displacement Project, 2022 ,...a_n_t_~-----~ H~i/':"'/:-s--------------- """!':~: -----.~1~:::------- 7 0"°• ' "'J""~ow l),.;t,Quallty Turk :::, ;:;
ey □ ~,- ? ~ Caa1nga ro
L___j Polvadero
Gap
&
1350ft
FRESNO COUNTY
r NGS COUNOY
17..03
16.01 I owP.1 Ois1,i;1o =tt1E-m l Ri!.k
1111 At Risk of Ul~placement
1111 1 income liroup Ulsplacement
1111 2 Inc.0111c Groups Displac.cmcnt
c:::J C'..P.l"L'.llfi TrM.t Rnunrl,'.'.IIY
Cities in Kings County
c:::J Aw 11,1I
c:::::J Corcoran
c:::::J Hanford
c:::::J Lemoore
I 0 1y Arn1ml,iri~s
c:::::J CA r.ountv
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
58 Sites Analysis
This section provides a review of available vacant sites in the City of Avenal that allows and facilitates production of the city’s regional share of housing as required by State Law. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in the City of Avenal. The following issues are addressed:
a. Future Housing Needs Including Segregation/Integration b. R/ECAPs and RCAAs
c. Access to Opportunity
d. Disproportionate Housing Needs
e. Sites Inventory Findings
To determine where the county has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, the county must identify “adequate sites.” Under the State law (California Government Code section 65583[c][1], adequate sites are t hose with appropriate zoning in and development standards, with service and facilities, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of housing for all income levels.
Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) has introduced a duty to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification includes not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA , but also considers whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. Th is section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income lev el, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing and consider how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.
Additionally, State law requires that planning for housing be coordinated and integrated with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To achieve this requirement, the RHNA plan must allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
In September 2022, KCAG adopted the 2022 RTP/SCS update, which incorporates assumptions for housing and employment growth that affect future transportation needs. To achieve the RHNA consisten cy requirement, this RHNA used the same RTP assumptions for future housing development from the present (2022) to the RTP/SCS 2050 horizon year.
The goal of the RHNA Plan is to promote a fair distribution of attainable housing among the four cities and the unincorporated County in a way that also helps meet the state’s housing goals. Attainable housing is defined as housing that is both sufficient in supply and affordably priced. The total housing units specified in the RHNA plan for each jurisdiction are not to be construed as quotas for development. The RHNA Plan only determines the number and affordability of housing units that jurisdictions need to plan for through land use policies, regulations, infrastructure plans, and other housing assistance programs. Construction and
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
59 development of these allocations is not a requirement of the RHNA plan. a) Future Housing Needs including Segregation/Integration The City of Avenal’s 6th Cycle RHNA projects future housing need for the planning period 2024-2032 as 277 units; the City of Avenal’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for the planning period 2014-2024 as 679 units. The average rate of production to reach 679 units over ten years is approximately 68 units a year.
The average rate of production to reach 277 units over 8 years is approximately 35 units a year. Therefore, in the past decade, the City of Avenal has created an environment more conducive to housing production.
Table 35: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level
Jurisdiction
Extremely
Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
City of Avenal 24 24 37 55 137 277
Kings County Total 1,128 1,129 1,672 1,753 3,747 9,429
Percentage 11.76% 11.76% 15.86% 18.89% 41.71% 100%
The City of Avenal has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income.
The City of Avenal’s population in 2020 was approximately 9,406 individuals, the least populous jurisdiction compared to the City of Hanford, City of Lemoore, City of Corcoran, and unincorporated Kings County. The City of Avenal’s population was 9,082 in 2010, indicating just a 3.6% increase. That increase is smaller than in the City of Lemoore and Hanford. The Hispanic population was 71.8% in 2010 and increased to 87% in 2020. The Kings County Hispanic population average sits at 54.9%. The City of Avenal is significantly more Hispanic than Kings County as a whole. It is also significantly more Hispanic compared to the City of Hanford, City of Lemoore, and City of Corcoran where the proportion of the Hispanic population is generally between 40% - 70%. The White population decreased from 15.4 % in 2010 to 8.4 % in 2020. The next significant group in Avenal is the Black or African American population at 3.3%.
The City has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income. The City of Avenal faces some unique challenges than Kings County as a whole in terms of household and area characteristics. It has higher rates of poverty and segregation with some of the highest amounts of overpayment by renter households.
The City of Avenal, although it has a small population in comparison to other jurisdictions in Kings County, has a large share of farmworkers. Farmworkers constitute 45% of the total workforce in the City of Avenal.
The next largest share of farmworkers within the total workforce in a jurisdiction in Kings County is the City of Corcoran at 30%. The City of Lemoore has the smallest share of farmworkers in their total workforce, at 6%. These populations have unique needs that existing systems does not serve well so targeted efforts and programs are required to make an impact.
The City of Avenal will continue to work with Kings County Community Development Agency to develop and implement various Housing Element programs. They will actively participate in the City’s efforts to prioritize and implement the following strategies:
1. Research, identify, and apply for funds available through the CDBG and HOME Programs, Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program (MPRROP), United States Department
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
60 of Agriculture (USDA), Cap-and-Trade Program, and other funding sources that support affordable housing development and preservation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency, homeownership, code enforcement, farmworker housing, etc.
2. Implement the following Housing Programs:
• Program 1.1 - Code Enforcement
• Program 1.2 - Housing Rehabilitation Program
• Program 1.3 - Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing and Mobile Home Parks • Program 1.4 - Adequate Sites
• Program 1.5 - Infill Development
• Program 1.6 - Density Bonus Program
• Program 1.7 - Regulatory and Financial Assistance
• Program 1.8 - First Time Homebuyer Program
• Program 1.9 - Section 8 Rental Assistance
• Program 1.10 - Affordable Housing Assistance
• Program 1.11 - Special Needs Housing for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities • Program 1.12 – Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 1.13 – Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing • Program 1.14 - Farmworker and Employee Housing
• Program 1.15 - Housing for Persons with Disabilities
• Program 1.16 - Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
• Program 1.17 - Energy Conservation
• Program 1.18 - Update and Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in Compliance with State Laws
3. Foster partnerships with non-profit affordable housing developers and experts within the community-based organization’s membership.
4. Engage the community by “getting the word out” on key community planning meetings, informing the public on available housing programs, and translating affordable housing-related materials and interpreting at community workshop in Spanish. The city will arrange for provisions of Spanish translation materials and provide interpreters at community workshops.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
61 b) R/ECAPS and RCAAs
HUD has developed a census tract -based definition to assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), R/ECAP is defined as a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non- white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.
Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAPs if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, census tracts 17.02 and 17.03 are identified as R/ECAPs. This is not surprising since Figure 7: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas also identify census tracts 17.02 and 17.03 as High Segregation and Poverty.
In addition to RECAPs utilized by HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric to tell the story of segregation more fully in the United States5. RCAAs ar e defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016) . According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, there is no RCAA’s in the City of Avenal.
The distribution of RHNA sites throughout the city will therefore not exacerbate racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or racially concentrated areas of affluence. These vacant sites have potential to exceed the Kings County RHNA projections.
c) Access to Opportunity
The City of Avenal has a mix of resource area types. The central and southern parts of the City of Avenal, census tracts 17.02 and 17.03 are High Segregation and Poverty areas. The northern section, or census tract
16.01, is a moderate resource area. Much of the City of Avenal’s development occurs in census tract 17.02 and 17.03 because the northern areas have geologic conditions with higher slopes. In turn, the RHNA sites are concentrated in census tract 17.02 and 17.03. New residential and mixed-use development in these identified areas will help to create more housing affordable to households at lower income levels, introduce new residents to the areas which can contribute to greater neighborhood stability, and expand opportunities for people to both live and work in the City of Avenal.
According to Figure 15, census tract 17.03 is the area with the most overcrowded and severely crowded units. Renters are most overburdened by housing payments in census tract in 17.02 while homeowners are most overburdened by payment in census tract 17.03. It is interesting to note in the income category of >30% to <=50%, 86.7% of homeowners overpaid for housing compared to 68.6% in Kings County overall. averages. Across all income categories, renters were more overburdened at 56.1% in comparison to 43.2% in Kings County. Additionally, across all income categories, homeowners in the City of Avenal, 15.7%, were less overburdened by housing payments than homeowners in across Kings County, 22.5%.
The General Plan land use map and zoning ordinance identify those areas of the city that are to be developed with residential uses, and what standards apply to the different types of residential uses.
Such standards are a necessary tool to promote and ensure a healthy, compatible, and high-quality living environment. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide range of residential uses, with densities ranging from 1 unit per 6,000 square feet in lower density residential areas and one unit per 2,000 square feet in the higher density multi-family zones.
Existing density bonus ordinance allows
a developer to request a density bonus of up to 35 percent over the maximum density that is allowed by the zone in which the project is located if the developer agrees to reserve a certain percentage of the units as
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
62 available to lower income households and/or senior citizens. A program has been added to amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to be compatible with new changes in law, as applicable. Some of these changes remove zoning barriers for “shared housing” projects and areas with “very low vehicle travel” which can help to reduce overcrowding rates and improve housing choice for residents in the City of Avenal. d) Disproportionate Housing Needs
The 6th Cycle RHNA projects the City of Avenal’s future housing needs at 227 units; the City of Avenal’s 5th Cycle RHNA determined a need for 639 units.
The total housing needs include 24 units for extremely low-income, 24 units for very low-income, 37 units for low- income, 55 units for moderate-income, and 137 units for above moderate-income. The need for lower income units totals 85 units while the need for moderate and above housing units totals 192 units.
Housing for lower income households represents 30.7% of projected housing needs.
Figure 19 shows the vacant lots in the City of Avenal. The total number of units that could be accommodated in the City of Avenal during the 2024-32 planning period are 314 lower income housing units and 2,172 moderate and above-moderate income housing units. Available land can support 2,636 housing units which can exceed RHNA allocation requirements.
The intent of introducing new residential development in these areas is to add new housing to desirable areas and provide a range of housing choices at different prices for current and future residents. With a broader range of housing options, housing will become more affordable across the community, which should lessen the housing cost burden, particularly for renters in the City of Avenal.
Table 36: Potential New Dwelling Units by Zone
General Plan
Zone
Acres
Potential New Units by Income
Lower
Moderate
and
Above
Total
AVENAL
LDR R-1 519 2172 2172
MLDR R-2 25 250 250
MDR R-3 22.7 314 314
Sub-Total 566.7 314 2422 2636
e) Sites Inventory Findings
The distribution of RHNA sites in High Poverty and Segregation areas, census tract 17.02 and 17.03 the community will help to improve the opportunities and outcomes throughout the City of Avenal. Furthermore, the RHNA sites will allow for development at densities needed to stimulate affordable housing development.
All residential zones in the city allow accommodation of low -income housing units, like ADUs and JADUs, provided that the structures containing the units meet all development standards specified under the zoning ordinance.
I I I I
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 19: City of Avenal Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater
\
\
■
■ -
City of Avenal Zoning f1
Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greate_r
<;
LEGEND
~ Flood Zones
D vacant L and 6,000 sq It+
D eity Area
□Pa rcels
Zoning
AE
cc
• oc
Ml
•o
. PF
Rl
R2
. R3
RE
Map prepared by:
Maddison Faria
April 11, 2024
Kings county community
Deve lopment Agency
HOO W Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230
(S59)852-2M 7
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 20: City of Avenal Vacant Land Inventory
/
Block Group 1
17.02 L I 'Tl !
-S.\'-.IJO.r4u1.Ju
l , I t
l 1 "IL .J ·i
' Block Group 2J ' ~
+ ± H E ,
I
I
..Lei I ,.i_ -
_][
I_
I
\
\
City of Avenal
V~cant Land Inventory
Block Group_!____
17.03 ~~ ••,,,,. . th.•.•••••••.•• •••• '••"• ................ , .... ,, •=-••• ' .... ~- •.•.
LEGEND
Vacant Land
[ Flood Zone
C] City Boundaries
C] Census Blocks
C] Census Tracts
Map prepared by:
Maddison Faria
April 11, 2024
Kings County Community
Development Agency
HOO W Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230
(559)852-2647
o ____ ....... o.-=36====a0.7~11es
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
65 Census Tract 16.01
The only area identified as a Moderate Resource in the City of Avenal. It is also an area identified as High POC Segregation. All the census tracts in the City of Avenal are in the highest percentile bracket of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score that measures environmental hazard risk. One of the disadvantages of this area is that it does not provide access to employment opportunities within a 45 minute commute.
This area indicates higher elevation which creates barriers to development. There are no vacant sites identified in census tract 16.01, according to Figure 1A-18.
Census Tract 17.02
This census tract is identified as an area with High Segregation and Poverty. This census tract has the highest rates of poverty and overpayment by renters in the City of Avenal. All the census tracts in the City of Avenal are in the highest percentile bracket of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score that measures environmental hazard risk. A portion of the census tract is in the 1
% Annual Chance Flood Hazard.
The majority of the vacant land in census tract 17.02 is outside of the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. The sites accommodate lower density housing production.
Census Tract 17.03
This census tract is identified as an area with High Segregation and Poverty. This census tract has a higher percentage of overpayment by owners compared to renters. It also has the highest rates of overcrowded and severely overcrowded units. All the census tracts in the City of Avenal are in the highest percentile bracket of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score that measures environmental hazard risk.
The majority of the vacant land in census tract 17.03 is outside of the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard.
There are more sites in this census tract that accommodate higher density housing production.
Census Tract 9818
There is not much data available for census tract 9818. This census tract consists of the Avenal State Prison.
There are no vacant sites identified in this census tract.
Note: Single parent female headed households with children are not concentrated in any one census tract in the City of Avenal.
Summary:
The City of Avenal’s RHNA sites are generally concentrated in census tract 17.02 and 17.03. These areas do have a higher concentration of segregation and poverty. For these reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA allocation are appropriate to affirmatively further fair housing by providing more housing choice.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
66 Table 37: Characteristics by City of Avenal Census Tracts
Characteristics Census Tract
16.01 Census Tract
17.02 Census Tract
17.03 Census Tract
9818
Figure 1A-1
TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Areas
Moderate
Resource
High Segregation &
Poverty
High Segregation &
Poverty
N/A
Figure 1A-2:
Local Median Income
$35,000 - $60,000 $35,000 - $60,000 $35,000 - $60,000 N/A Figure 1A-3:
Poverty Status
20% - 30% 30% -40% 10% - 20% < 10%
Figure 1A-4:
Local Racial
Demographics
High POC
Segregation
N/A
N/A
Racially Integrated
Figure 1A-5:
Local RCAAs
Not a RCAA Not a RCAA Not a RCAA Not a RCAA
Figure 1A-6:
Single Parent Female
Headed Households with
Children
20% - 40%
20% - 40%
20% - 40%
N/A
Figure 1A-7: Population
with a Disability
< 10%
10% - 20% < 10%
< 10%
Figure 1A-10: Jobs Within
45-Minute Transit
Commute
0 1 – 2,500
1-2,500
A small portion to
the south has
1 – 2,500
0 Figure 1A-12:
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
75% - 100% 75% - 100% 75% - 100% N/A
Figure 1A-13:
Flood Hazard Zones and
Fire Hazard Severity
Zones
Small north portion
contain 1% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
Southern portions
contain 1% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
Southern portions
contain 1% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
No identified flood
hazard
No Identified Risk No Identified Risk No Identified Risk No Identified Risk Figure 1A-14:
Overcrowded Units
10%-15% 5.19% - 10% 10%-15%
N/A
Figure 1A-14:
Severely Overcrowded
Units
< 2.5%
< 2.5%
2.5%-6.5%
N/A
Figure 1A-15:
Overpayment by Renters
< 20% 40% - 60% 20%-40% N/A
Figure 1A-16:
Overpayment by
Homeowners
20%-40%
< 20%
20%-40%
N/A
Figure 1A-17: Estimated
Displacement Risk
At Risk
Displacement
At Risk
Displacement
At Risk
Displacement
N/A
SECTION 1A-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
67 Contributing Factors
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory.
The County supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities.
Based on the issues identified in this Fair Housing Analysis, the following are the top 5 issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:
1. Maintaining and preserving the existing affordable housing stock;
2. Assisting in the provision of housing;
3. Removing governmental constraints, as necessary;
4. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; and
5. Promoting equal housing opportunity.
After considering these issues and FHEA recommendations, the County has identified in Table 20 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in unincorporated Kings County and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the Table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.
Table 38: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues
AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue
Contributing Factors
Priority
Meaningful Actions
Limitations in local
Consolidated Planning
Processes, ongoing CDBG and
HOME funding allocations,
Housing Elements Processes,
and other city planning
documents.
Existing low-density
residential
development under
general plan and
zoning code
Gap between low
density and medium
density and high-
density classification
High Program 1.10 Assist
Affordable Housing:
Through direct financial
assistance such as CDBG
and HOME, priority
entitlement processing,
regulatory incentives such as
density bonus and modified
development standards
Assist in the provision of
housing by removing
government constraints and
promoting equal housing
opportunity
Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications
Permission of pre-
approved design, and
development standards
High Programs 1.9 Section 8
Rental Assistance
Program 1.13 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 1.14 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
SECTION 1A-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
68 Program 1.11 Special Needs
Housing for Seniors and
Persons with Disabilities
Funding for marginalized or
distressed communities, such as
Transit Oriented Development
Funds, Strategic Growth
Council grants, HCD's
Housing-Related Parks
Program, Safe Routes to
School, and Brownfield
funding.
Ensuring funding is
available for
marginalized and
distressed community
High Research, identify, and
apply for funds available
through the CDBG and
HOME Programs, Mobile
home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership
Program (MPRROP),
United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Cap-
and-Trade Program, and
other funding sources that
support affordable housing
development and
preservation, infrastructure
investment, energy
efficiency, homeownership,
code enforcement,
farmworker housing, etc.
Program 1.8 First-Time
Homebuyer Program
Program 1.9 Section 8
Rental Assistance
Program 1.17 Energy
Conservation
Provide guidance for site
selection of affordable housing
developments.
Housing Element
identifies adequate sites
to accommodate the
City’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 2,985 units
High Program 1.4 Adequate Sites:
Adequate sites are those with
sufficient development and
density standards, water and
sewer services, and adequate
infrastructure.
Develop a program to educate
and encourage landlords to
accept Housing Choice
Vouchers.
Lack of readily available
information regarding fair
housing resources and
assistance to persons in
filing a complaint
Lack of education of
public and housing
providers regarding rights
and responsibilities under
the AFH and FEHA
High Program 1.16 Promote Equal
Housing Opportunities
SECTION 1A-6: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
69 Develop and implement a
proactive code enforcement
program that holds property
owners accountable and
proactively plans for resident
relocation when necessary.
Code enforcement High Program 1.1 Code
Enforcement
1.2 Housing Rehabilitation
Program,
Prioritize basic infrastructure
improvements like water,
sewer, and streetlights.
Ensuring availability of
basic infrastructure to
proposed development of
lower-income households
High Program 1.4 Adequate Sites
Disproportionate Housing
Needs, including Overpayment
and Substandard Housing
Ongoing need for
affordable housing
Need for assistance with
monthly housing costs
Lack of local information
regarding available
housing rehabilitation,
emergency repair, and
weatherization programs
Need for targeted
housing revitalization
strategies
Medium Program 1.9 Section 8 Rental
Assistance
Program 1.13 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 1.14 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
1.11 Special Needs Housing
for Seniors and Persons with
Disabilities
Use design tools to seamlessly
integrate affordable housing
development into larger mixed-
income developments.
Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications ·
Approval process
Medium Program 1.10 Affordable
Housing Assistance
Displacement Risk Land use and zoning laws
Displacement of residents
due to economic
pressures
Medium
Program 1.3 Preservation of
At-Risk Affordable Housing
and Mobile Home Parks
Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)
• • • • •
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Draft - July 2024
Prepared By:
Realty Planners Group
Fallbrook, California
Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated) • • • • •
SECTION 1A: TABLE OF CONTENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-ii
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COUNTY OF KINGS
Local Assessment of Fair Housing ............................................................................................. 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ........................................................................................... 6 Sites Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 57 Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................. 69 TABLES
Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020 .................................................... 7 Table 2: City of Corcoran Fair Housing Compliance .......................................................................... 7 Table 3: Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time ............................................................ 10 Table 5: Median Household Income ................................................................................................ 14 Table 6: Household Income Distribution by Tenure ......................................................................... 14 Table 7 Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin ...................................................... 14 Table 8: Total Households in Poverty .............................................................................................. 15 Table 9: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time .................................................................... 15 Table 10: Large Households ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 11: Household Characteristics ............................................................................................... 17 Table 12: Household type by tenure ................................................................................................ 17 Table 13: Populations with a Disability ............................................................................................ 21 Table 14: Travel Time to Work ........................................................................................................ 32 Table 15: Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers............................................................ 32 Table 16: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County ....................................................................... 34 Table 17: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 35 Table 18: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County ....................................................................... 36 Table 19: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates ........................................................................... 40 Table 20: Housing Tenure by Race or Hispanic Origin .................................................................... 41 Table 21: Total Households Over Time ........................................................................................... 43 Table 22: Total Housing Units Over Time ........................................................................................ 43 Table 23:Total Housing Units by Type ............................................................................................. 43 Table 24: Total Housing Units by Type Over Time .......................................................................... 44 Table 25: Building Permits by Number of Structures Authorized ..................................................... 44 Table 26: Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built .................................................................... 44 Table 27: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time ...................................................................... 45 Table 28: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months ............................................................................................................................... 45 Table 29: Overcrowding by Tenure ................................................................................................. 46 Table 30: Household Overpayment by Tenure ................................................................................ 47 Table 33: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level ........................................................................ 58 Table 34: Potential Housings Units 2024-2032 ................................................................................ 62 Table 36: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues ..................................................................... 69
SECTION 1A: TABLE OF CONTENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-iii
FIGURES
Figure 1: Local Racial Demographics ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ........................................................... 15 Figure 3: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ..................................................................... 16 Figure 4: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children.................................................. 19 Figure 5: Population with a Disability ............................................................................................... 22 Figure 6: Local RCAAs .................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023 ..................................................... 26 Figure 8: Kings County All Transit Performance Score ..................................................................... 28 Figure 9: Kings County High quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 mile) ................................... 29 Figure 10: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce ...................................................... 30 Figure 11: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute. ........................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 12: School districts in Kings County ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 13: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile) ........................... 38 Figure 14: Flood Hazard Zones ....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 15: Overcrowding in Kings County ........................................................................................ 49 Figure 16: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level .............................................. 50 Figure 17: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying ......................................................................... 51 Figure 18: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract .......................................... 56 Figure 19: City of Corcoran and Surrounding Area Vacant Sites 6,000 sqft or Greater .................... 65 Figure 20: City of Corcoran and Surrounding Area Vacant Land Inventory ...................................... 66
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-4 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Local Assessment of Fair Housing
Introduction
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
1 California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Although this is the Housing Element for the County of Kings, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10) requires all local jurisdictions to address patterns locally and regionally to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. This section is organized by fair housing topics Strategies to address the identified issues are included throughout the section. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, the County of Kings identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues.
The AFFH analysis must contain the following:
1. Outreach
2. Assessment of Fair Housing
a. Key Data and Background Information
b. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f. Disproportional Housings Needs
g. Displacement Risk
3. Sites Inventory
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), April 27, 2021, preface page, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-5 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
4. Identification
Outreach
a) Public Participation
State law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation in three formal community meetings to initiate the Housing Element. To that end, each jurisdiction has provided opportunities for residents, interested parties, and local officials to participate in the update process and offer recommendations regarding housing needs and strategies to address those needs.
The public participation process for this Housing Element involved four major stages:
1. Public workshops and meetings in each of the four cities and the unincorporated County during the preparation of the Draft Housing Element.
2. Publication of the Draft Housing Element and subsequent review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
3. Revisions to the Housing Element to address comments from HCD and publication of a revised Draft Housing Element.
4. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council of each city and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Kings County prior to adoption of the final Housing Element.
b) City Of Corcoran Website
City of Corcoran’s website (https://cityofcorcoran.ca.gov/departments/community_development/index.php) serves as the main conduit of information for individuals who can access material online. The website is regularly updated to reflect ongoing community input opportunities, advertise draft housing element, and answer commonly asked questions. The website includes the following information:
• Upcoming meeting information
• Housing Element Workshops (Spanish and English)
• Notices of public hearing
• Links to Housing Element and other planning documents
c) General Multi-Lingual Advertisements
The City utilizes a variety of methods to advertise the project, engage the community, and solicit input on the Housing Element (including fair housing analysis). These efforts are summarized herein to demonstrate the City’s meaningful commitment to community collaboration. The city has prepared workshop flyers (in English and Spanish), and sent emails to stakeholders requesting involvement and providing flyers and outreach information in English and Spanish.
d) Community Meeting
The City of Corcoran held a Planning Commission on November 20, 2023 at 5:30 pm. Members of the community did not attend the meeting. The Planning Commission discussed several topics on zoning, city's obligations to build, and whether the city could force a developer to build affordable housing.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-6 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
This section provides an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in the City of Corcoran. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in Hanford, and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies, and programs to affirmatively further fair
housing. The following issues are addressed:
a) Key Data and Background Information
b) Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c) Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e) Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f) Disproportionate Housing Needs
g) Displacement Risk
a) Key Data and Background Information
Kings County is located within the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, with Fresno County to the north and west, Tulare County to the east, and Kern County to the south. Created in 1893, Kings County was carved from the western portion of Tulare County and later added another 100 square miles. The Kings River, from which the County derives its name, runs along the northern edges and flows south towards the center of the County. Historically, this river flowed farther south to what was once Tulare Lake Kings County is comprised of four cities (Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore), four unincorporated community service areas (Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford), and a few other smaller community pockets. Agriculture remains the predominant landscape of Kings County, with approximately 84% of its land area used for agriculture. The County’s transportation network has played a key role in its economic development.
The City of Corcoran, incorporated in 1914, is situated in the San Joaquin Valley and is near the Tulare Lake Basin, one of the most fertile regions in the world. It is connected to one of the largest irrigated farming operations in the world, J.G. Boswell Company. Its primary crops are Pima cotton, alfalfa hay, tomatoes, and wheat. Another major industry in Corcoran is the state prison. It incarcerates approximately 12,000 prisoners and employs around 3,500 individuals. The City and community leaders are continuing to push for additional industries to diversity the local economic base.
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), Table 1, the data illustrates the population growth in the city of Corcoran and Kings County over a 30- year period from 1990 to 2020. In Corcoran, the household population increased from 8,309 in 1990 to 13,525 in 2020, marking a substantial rise of 5,216 persons, or a 62.8% increase. This growth rate is notably higher than the overall growth in Kings County, which saw its population rise from 89,469 in 1990 to 136,964 in 2020, an increase of 47,495 persons or 53.10%. These figures highlight a significant population expansion in Corcoran, outpacing the county's average growth rate over the same period.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-7 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020
Jurisdiction
Household Population Change 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Persons %
Corcoran 8,309 9,539 12,573 13,525 5,216 62.80%
County Totals 89,469 109,332 131,402 136,964 47,495 53.10%
Note: All numbers exclude persons in group quarters (State prisons and Naval Air station Lemoore) ; Sources: Census 1990, 2000, 2010; Cal.DOF, , E5 and E8 Population and Housing Estimates.
The City of Corcoran evaluated the 5 th Cycle Housing Program Evaluation for 2014 to 2024. The following highlight some of its accomplishments:
The availability of decent and affordable housing to meet the needs of current and future residents is an important housing goal. To accomplish this goal, a comprehensive assessment of housing needs provides the basis for developing responsive policies and programs.
b) Fair Housing Enforcement Outreach Capacity
Equal access to housing is fundamental to each person being able to meet essential needs and to pursuing personal, educational, employment, or other goals. In recognition of equal housing access as a fundamental right, the governments of the United States and the State of California have both established fair housing as a right protected by law. Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.
The California fair housing laws are built upon the federal laws and add marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and “any arbitrary factor” as protected categories under the laws. Many factors in the public and private domains impede equal access to housing or fair housing choice. Impediments to fair housing choice are:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or • Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor. To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove or mitigate impediments to fair housing choice. The City of Corcoran is dedicated to providing fair housing opportunities to all residents and to ensure that all applicable laws are complied with throughout the city
The City of Corcoran provides resources and programs to address fair housing concerns. Below is a table that discusses laws and compliance regarding fair housing. Further discussion of programs is found in the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element and in the Contributing Factors section of this AFFH report.
Table 2: City of Corcoran Fair Housing Compliance
Law Description Compliance
Government Code
Section 65008
Covers actions of a city, county, city and county,
or other local government agency, and makes
those actions null and void if the action denies an
individual or group of individuals the enjoyment
of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other
Compliance is achieved by uniform
application of the City’s codes,
regulations, policies and practices,
including development standards, design
guidelines, application submittal
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-8 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
land use in the state because of membership in a
protected class, the method of financing, and/or the
intended occupancy.
For example, a violation under Government Code
section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied
more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an
affordable development as compared to market-rate
developments, or multifamily housing as
compared to single family homes.
requirements, fees and approval findings.
Corcoran supports the recommendations of
the San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and
Equity Assessment and cooperates with the
State in the development of the Assessment
of Fair Housing
Government Code
Section 8899.50
Requires all public agencies to administer programs
and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner to affirmatively further
fair housing and avoid any action that is
materially inconsistent with its obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Compliance is achieved through
consultations with community stakeholders
and support agencies as part of program
evaluation and funding decisions.
Government Code
Section 11135 et
seq.
Requires full and equal access to all programs
and activities operated, administered, or funded
with financial assistance from the state, regardless
of one’s membership or perceived membership in a
protected class.
Compliance is achieved through
promotion/availability of activities and
programs to all persons of all backgrounds
to participate equally in community
programs and activities.
Housing
Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, §
65589.5.)
Provides that a local agency shall not disapprove
a housing development project, for very low,
low-, or moderate-income households, or an
emergency shelter, or condition approval in a
manner that renders the housing development
project infeasible for development for the use of
very low, low-, or moderate-income households,
or an emergency shelter, including through the use
of design review standards, unless it makes certain
written findings, based upon a preponderance of
the evidence in the record.
Compliance is achieved through the
development review process consistent
with the Housing Accountability Act.
Additionally, the city continually reviews
its
development standards and to ensure they
facilitate an objective and equitable review
of applicable projects.
Excessive
Subdivision
Standards (Gov.
Code, § 65913.2.)
Provides that, in exercising its authority to
regulate subdivisions a city, county, or city and
county shall:
a) Refrain from imposing criteria for
design, as defined in Section 66418, or
improvements, as defined in Section
66419, for the purpose of rendering
infeasible the development of housing
for any and all economic segments of
the community. However, nothing in
this section shall be construed to
enlarge or diminish the authority of a
city, county, or city and county under
other provisions of law to permit a
developer to construct such housing.
b)
Consider the effect of ordinances
adopted and actions taken by it with
respect to the housing needs of the
region in which the local jurisdiction is
situated.
c) Refrain from imposing standards and
criteria for public improvements
including, but not limited to, streets,
sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks,
which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or
Compliance is achieved through the
implementation of a fair and equitable
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the Excessive
Subdivision Standards Act.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-9 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
city and county at that time to its
publicly financed improvements
located in similarly zoned districts
within that city, county, or city and
county.
Housing Element
Law (Gov. Code, §
65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).)
Section 65583 stipulates that the housing element
shall consist of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. The housing
element shall identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing
and projected needs of all economic segments of
the community.
Subdivision (c)(5) provides that, in order to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, the
program shall promote and affirmatively further
fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for
all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3
of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and
federal fair housing and planning law.
Compliance is achieved through
preparation and adoption of a Housing
Element found to be in substantial
compliance with State Housing Element law
by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
C. Integration And Segregation Patterns And Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of pers ons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. Conversely, integration refers to a condition in which there is a not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. The following analysis will analyze levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, and income to identify the groups in Corcoran that experience the highest levels of segregation. Minorities are often concentrated in impoverished areas an d lack access to resources such as jobs, educational opportunities, life services and face other disadvantages.
Racial Demographics
The racial and ethnic composition of Corcoran and Kings County can be seen in Table 3. It shows that in Corcoran, the majority of the population, 69.3%, identifies as Hispanic or Latino, which is significantly higher than Kings County's 54.90%. The non-Hispanic or Latino population in Corcoran accounts for 30.7%,
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-10 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
which is notably lower than the 45.10% in Kings County. When breaking down the non-Hispanic or Latino population, Corcoran has a smaller percentage of White individuals (15.3%) compared to Kings County (31.60%), and a notably higher percentage of Black or African American individuals (11.7%) compared to Kings County (5.90%). The percentages for other racial groups such as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and those identifying as other races or with two or more races are relatively low in both Corcoran and Kings County. The city’s Hispanic population in 2000 was already well over half the population, 59.6%. In the span of two decades, the proportion of those that identify as Hispanic has increased an additional 10%. Within the same period, the White Alone demographic has changed the most, a decrease of 10%.
The demographic breakdown below highlights the distinct racial and ethnic makeup of Corcoran in contrast to the broader Kings County area, particularly the higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino residents and the different distribution of other racial groups.
Table 3: Race and Ethnicity
Racial /Ethnic Group Corcoran Kings County
Not Hispanic
or Latino 30.7% 45.10%
White 15.3% 31.60%
Black or
African American 11.7% 5.90%
American Indian/
Alaska Native 0.8% 0.80%
Asian 0.7% 3.60%
Native Hawaiian
/Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.10%
Other races or
2+ races 2.1% 3.20%
Hispanic or Latino
(any race) 69.3% 54.90%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B03002
Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time 2000 Percent 2010 Percent 2020 Percent
Total: 14,458 24,813 22,078
Hispanic or Latino 8,618 59.6% 15,545 62.6% 15,304 69.3% Not Hispanic Or Latino: 5,840 40.4% 9,268 37.4% 6,774 30.7% White Alone 3,479 24.1% 4,818 19.4% 3,377 15.3%
Black Or African American Alone 2,029 14.0% 3,617 14.6% 2,578 11.7% American Indian And Alaska Native Alone 77 0.5% 133 0.5% 180 0.8% Asian Alone 102 0.7% 179 0.7% 160 0.7%
Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific
Islander Alone 2 0.0% 11 0.0% 23 0.1%
Some Other Race Alone 9 0.1% 358 1.4% 67 0.3%
Two Or More Races: 142 1.0% 152 0.6% 389 1.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 & 2010, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B03002.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-11 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
As seen on Figure 1, most of the City of Corcoran is identified as Low-Medium Segregation. Census tract
14.01, which is located centrally, is identified as High POC Segregation. There is also a small part of the southern city limits of Corcoran that falls into the large Census tract 16.01 that is also identified High POC Segregation. Census tract 9801 lacks sufficient data. As the City aims to integrate further, it is important to take displacement risk into account which discussed in a section below.
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 1: Local Racial Demographics
\
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD); OBI, 2020
16.01 15
Whitley we
KINGS COl'.JNTY
14.01 D Corcoran
Waukena
~
T ULAR E C0 UNTY
~ 0-
~
-:::,~
@J
Legend
CJ C'~ M ll~ Trart Onund;,iy
atlPJ: In Kln9~ r.ounty
Cl Avena l
CJ Corcoran
D llantord
D Lf=IUUOl t'
C Cily 1:k>uridmi~s
CJ CA coonly
R•c lal S"!]r"!)af1nn/lnt"') ra tlon (Om, ?O?O) - Tract - No lXlli.l Apl,Jlil ;;.tl>I~ lo 2021 C~IISUS huc.l
Boundary
C lw:l•lly Tnt"()rat"'1
L_ I ow-MN1i11m ~ 1~ tion
1 High POC Segregation
C High White Segregatio n
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-13 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Gini Index
The Gini index is a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviates from a perfect equal distribution. The scale is from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing the highest possible level of inequality. Gini coefficient for California is
0.49 while Kings County has a Gini index of 0.41. The City of Corcoran has a Gini Index of .46. All three jurisdictions have a similar amount of inequality in terms of distribution of income among households.
Income Distribution
The City of Corcoran consists of six census tracts and is the third most populous city in Kings County with approximately 13,525 residents, excluding the state prison population.
Along with housing prices and rents, household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunities within Kings County. Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. On the other hand, however, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. According to the ACS 2016-2020 Table S1901 the median household income for the entire County was reported as $61,556.
Table 5 highlights that Corcoran's household income is substantially less than that of the wider county and state levels. The table details the median household income over the past 12 months for the City of Corcoran, Kings County, and California. In Corcoran, the median income is $42,997, which is 69.9% of the Kings County median income of $61,556. Compared to the state of California, where the median income is $78,672, Corcoran's median household income is lower at 54.7% of the California median.
Corcoran consists of a larger proportion of the workforce which hold “blue -collar” jobs such as farming, construction, extraction, manufacturing, production, transportation, and material moving compared to other cities such as Hanford and Lemoore with more "white collar jobs". Although median household income is a common benchmark for comparison, the distribution of household income also provides a useful measure of housing needs in a community.
In housing analysis, households are typically grouped into categories, expressed relative to the Area Median Income (AMI) and adjusted for family size. Using State of California income thresholds, the income groups analyzed were as follows:
• Extremely low income: Up to 30% of AMI
• Very low income: 31-50% of AMI
• Low income: 51-80% of AMI
• Moderate income: 81-120% of AMI
• Upper income: Above 120% of AMI
Table 6 estimates the percentage of households by tenure within each income category in each jurisdiction as reported in HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the Census ACS 2014-2018. Countywide, almost one-quarter of owner households were in the lower-income category (80% or less than the AMI --extremely-low, very-low, and low incomes), while over one-half of renter households were in the lower-income category.
In the City of Corcoran, approximately 63% of homeowners belong to the moderate- and upper-income category whereas around 29% of renters belong to the moderate and upper income category. There is a large difference in tenure for extremely low-income households. Only 10.3% of extremely low-income households
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-14 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
own while 25% of extremely low-income households rent. However, Corcoran homeowners in every income category, apart from those above area median income, have a higher rate of ownership than other households in Kings County. This is also true for Corcoran households that rent compared to others in Kings County.
Much of the population in Corcoran, 69.3%, identifies as Hispanic or Latino while 15.3% identifies as White Alone. The average median Hispanic household income is $41,591 which is close to Corcoran’s overall median household income, $42,997. Notably, the White Alone population earns around $15,000 more on average; the White Alone median household income is $55,786 . In the City of Corcoran , much like Kings County and California, there are income disparities when comparing race and ethnicity.
Table 5: Median Household Income
City of
Corcoran Kings County California
Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months $42,997 $61,556 $78,672 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
Table 6: Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Income Category Corcoran Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 10.3% 5.50%
>30% to <=50% 13.5% 7.30%
>50% to <=80% 13.0% 11.00%
>80% to <=100% 17.8% 8.60%
>100% 45.4% 67.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Renters
<= 30% 25.0% 17.70%
>30% to <=50% 21.8% 14.60%
>50% to <=80% 24.0% 22.80%
>80% to <=100% 12.5% 11.40%
>100% 16.8% 33.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
Table 7 Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin
City of
Corcoran
Kings
County California
White Alone Non-Hispanic $55,786 $74,918 $90,496
Black Or African American Alone Non-Hispanic $56,076 $54,976 American Indian And Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic $29,000 $44,842 $60,182 Asian Alone Non-Hispanic $80,530 $101,380
Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic $98,864 $81,682 Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic $27,428 $47,592 $59,287 Two Or More Races Non-Hispanic $72,780 $72,188 $76,733 Hispanic Or Latino of Any Race $41,591 $49,373 $62,330
1A-15
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 2: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. ACS 5yr estimates (2017-2021). Updated: March 2023.
16.01 Whi t ley ve
KINGS COGNTY
14.01 Corcora"'n:.:-...,...--1
9801
Waukena l.l:,y':lf»J
MA.; li'ln 1"1.L<iP.hnld lnri'ln'~.,('h"li;t 1/ .... rA1tn~ (1n&hnn ;:dp ::itM t r. :.Jlr.11) = •C$35,000
= $35,000 - $60,000
- $!.,IJ,000 • $84,001
- $!!;1µ')7 -$12.Q,00()
- >i, IXl,('ff)
c:::::::::J C"Jty R..-i11n+1.1r1P-:
C::::::::, r.m.,-,r. ~ ttF'..""111n1t:iry
Cltej n K1ng5 counr-,r
c:::::::J A.,,enal
c::::::11 corcor.:m
c::::::, Han""'1
c:::::I l '<Hl ll.)(;f\l
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Poverty Status
In 2021, Kings County, California, experienced varying levels of poverty across different regions. The overall poverty rate for Kings County stood at 16.4%, marking a 2.19% increase from the previous year. According to Table 8, 18.8% of households in Kings County are in poverty, 6.6% higher than California.
The City of Corcoran’s poverty rate is 25.5%. As seen in Figure 3, t he highest concentration of poverty is in census tract 13, which is largely the periphery of Corcoran, with over 40% of households experiencing poverty.
The central tracts have varying percentages of households in poverty. These statistics underscore the diverse economic landscape of Corcoran, where certain areas exhibit significantly higher poverty rates, highlighting the need for targeted socioeconomic interventions.
Notably, the household poverty rate from 2010 to 2015 increased by around 14%; while the total households in Corcoran fell by 156 households but the number of households in poverty increased by 353 households. Then from 2015 to 2020, the household poverty rate and the number of households in poverty decreased even as the total number of households increased from 2,772 to 3,079 households.
Table 8: Total Households in Poverty
City of
Corcoran Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Income Below Poverty Level 785 25.5% 4,464 13.1% 806,599 9.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.
Table 9: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time
2010 2015 2020
Income in the Past 12 Months Below Poverty Level 572 925 785 Total Households 2,928 2,772 3,079
Percent of Households in Poverty 19.5% 33.4% 25.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.
Corcoran’s Program 2.10 Section 8 Rental Vouchers’ objective is to promote Section 8 assistance which extends rental subsidies to extremely-low- and very-low-income households equal to the difference between 30% of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the program. Section 8 assistance is administered by Kings County Housing Authority.
Extremely Low-Income Households
In 2006 state law was amended (Assembly Bill 2634) to add the extremely low-income (ELI) category (up to 30% AMI) to the required analysis of household characteristics and housing growth needs. Due to their limited incomes, these households have the greatest difficulty finding suitable housing at an affordable price.
As Table 1A-2 below shows, the City of Corcoran has about 10.3 % of extremely low-income category owners and 25% percent of extremely low-income category renters. Extremely low-income households that rent or own have higher rates of overpayment than every other income category. Further discussion on overpayment can be found in the Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk section.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Figure 3: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. American Community Survey (ACS), 2017-2021 9801
Wa uke na
<o
TULARE C0 UNTY
~0-
<o,
";:>~
Legend
c:=::J City Boondaries
: : : CA county selection
c::::::J Census Tract Boondary
Cities in Kings County
c::::::J Avenal
c::::::J Corcoran
c::::::J Hanford
c:=:J Lemoore
% of Population v..tiose income in the past 12 roonths is below poverty level < 10%
10% - 20%
- 20% - 30%
- 30% - 40%
- >40%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-17
Familial Status
Comparing Corcoran, Kings County and California, household characteristics reveal some distinct patterns.
A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. Families often prefer single-family homes or condominiums to accommodate children, while single people generally occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors or young adults.
Table 10 displays household composition by community as reported by the Census ACS 2015-2020. Corcoran has 3,854 households, a small part of Kings County ’s 43,604 households. Families comprise approximately 80% of all households in Corcoran which is similar to Kings County. In Corcoran, 41.8% of family households have their own children under 18 years of age which is close to the rate in Kings County.
Married/cohabiting couples make up 56.7% of Corcoran’s households. Of those households, 32.5% have their own children under the age of 18. These rates are a little lower than Kings County’s averages. Single male householders with no spouse/partner present make up 14.1% of households which is about half the rate of their female householder counterparts that make up 29.2% of Corcoran households. Notably, Kings County’s average of female householder with no spouse/partner present make up 22.6% of households.
Corcoran has a larger share of large households, five or more people, compared to Kings County and California; large households make up 26.1 % of Corcoran’s households while it makes up 19.1% of Kings County households and 13.7% of California households. Close to 6% of Corcoran’s households compromise of seven person or more people, which is more than double the rate in Kings County and California. Overall, the average household size in the City of Corcoran is 3.42, a bit larger than the Kings County average.
When it comes to tenure in Corcoran, 36.2% of family households own while 43.9% rent. The rates for family households in Kings County that own or rent are inverse to Corcoran, 43.6% and 34.8% respectively. Male householder with no wife present that own represents 3.1%; of households while 4.9% rent; these rates are similar for the broader county. However female householders with no husband present that own represents
6.2% which is like the rate in Kings County. However, female householders with no husband present that rent represent 20.4% of households while in Kings County the rate is about half at 10.3%. Nonfamily households own and rent at somewhat similar rates in Corcoran and Kings County, around 10%.
Table 10: Large Households
City of
Corcoran
City of
Corcoran
Kings
County
Kings
County California California
Total Occupied Housing Units 3,845 43,604 13,103,114 Total Large Households (5 or More
Persons) 1,005 26.1% 8,315 19.1% 1,809,518 13.7%
5-Person Household 548 14.3% 4,968 11.4% 1,025,856 7.8% 6-Person Household 229 6.0% 2,216 5.1% 440,129 3.3%
7-or-More Person Household 228 5.9% 1,131 2.6% 343,533 2.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-17
Table 11: Household Characteristics
Age Group Corcoran Kings County
Total Households 3,854 43,604
Family Households 80.1% 78.30%
With own children under 18 years 41.8% 41.30%
Married/Cohabiting Couples 56.7% 61.20%
With own children under 18 years 32.5% 32.20%
Male Householder, no spouse/partner present 14.1% 16.20% With own children under 18 years 0.9% 2.40%
Living Alone 7.7% 8.30%
Age 65+ 2.4% 2.50%
Female Householder, no spouse/partner present 29.2% 22.60% With own children under 18 years 8.4% 6.80%
Living Alone 8.7% 8.80%
Age 65+ 5.5% 4.70%
Nonfamily Households 19.9% 21.70%
Average Household Size 3.42 3.14
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP-2, B11012, and S1101
Table 12: Household type by tenure
Household Type
Corcoran Kings County
HH % HH %
Total Households 3,845 43,604
Family households: 3,079 80.1% 34,155 78.30%
Owner 1,391 36.2% 18,997 43.60%
Renter 1,688 43.9% 15,158 34.80%
Married-couple family: 1,745 45.4% 23,236 53.30%
Owner 1,031 26.8% 14,704 33.70%
Renter 714 18.6% 8,532 19.60%
Male householder no wife present: 309 8.0% 3,653 8.40%
Owner 120 3.1% 1,499 3.40%
Renter 189 4.9% 2,154 4.90%
Female householder no husband present: 1,025 26.7% 7,266 16.70% Owner 240 6.2% 2,794 6.40%
Renter 785 20.4% 4,472 10.30%
Nonfamily households: 766 19.9% 9,449 21.70%
Owner 398 10.4% 4,371 10.00%
Renter 368 9.6% 5,078 11.60%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25007
I
I
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-18
Female Headed Households
Female householder households without a spouse or partner are also less common in unincorporated. These households often face challenges, particularly in terms of resource access and opportunities, especially for children in single-parent, female-headed households. In figure Table 11, it could be observed that single-parent female headed household lies between 20 and 30%. The distribution of single-parent, female-headed households correlate with TCAC/HCD opportunity areas designations, indicating that areas with lower resources and higher segregation and poverty have higher rates of such households.
Female-headed households have special housing needs including affordable housing, accessible daycare, health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed households comprised about 17% of all households in Kings County. State law recognizes that these households face challenges due to a combination of income levels, childcare expenses, and housing availability. As shown in Figure 4, the proportion of female-headed households, which is highlighted in the table, range from about 26.7% in the unincorporated. Notably, across all jurisdictions, the data reveals that a higher percentage of female- headed households are renters rather than homeowners. In Corcoran, family households constitute 80.1% of 3,845 total households, with a nearly equal split between owners (36.2%) and renters (43.9%). Married- couple families are 45.4% of households, but more are owners than renters. Male householders without a wi fe present make up 8.0%, and female householders without a husband present account for 26.7%, with a higher proportion of renters in both categories. This breakdown of household types and tenures, including the specific focus on female -headed households, provides a comprehensive overview of the diverse household compositions and housing situations in these regions, highlighting the need for tailored policy interventions and support services.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 4: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021. Updated: March 2023.
15 Wbltle¥ ve
KINGS CO\'.Jf\JiliY
[ Corcoran
16.01 9801
Waukena
<o
TULAR E C0UN TY
~ 0-
~
'-:>~
U:ucud
CJ C:N'lr.11!': 1rart uo1.1nd~ry
ati.~ ill Ki-11.1.s ( ui.mly
□ A\~:\/11
D C()f ( ~l l W l
C] Hrr-infnn1
D u:moou,•
l~m ·mt of Ch l\iim In ~ m..,I~ Hnrn:~hnktnr, Nn Sf)oll;.t>./ Pt.lt fll'!r l'f~lt HOI.Hhnld~
l <~ l1"1.,n 71l%
- 20% 40%
- 10% · 60¾
- 60% · 60¾
- H0% · 11. >¾
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Disability Rates and Services
Due to the multitude of possible functional limitations that may present as disabilities, and in the absence of information on external factors that influence disability, surveys like the Census Bureau’s ACS are limited to capturing difficulty with only selected activities. As such, people identified by the ACS as having a disability are, in fact, those who exhibit difficulty with specific functions and may, in the absence of accommodation, have a disability. To capture a variety of characteristics that encompass the definition of disability, the ACS identifies serious difficulty with four basic areas of functioning – hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation.
As presented in Table 13, the largest number of Kings County residents with disabilities was in the 18 to 64 years age group or the working age population with 8,357 individuals, which represented 11% of the total age group. However, disabilities were most common among senior citizens (65 years and over) .
Approximately 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability. At the local level, in the city of Corcoran the proportion of seniors reporting some type of physical disability ranged from 45.6% The most common type of disability among seniors was having ambulatory difficulty. Developmental Disabilities as defined by federal law; “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments. • Is manifested before the individual attains age 18.
• Is likely to continue indefinitely.
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity:
a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency. • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
The Census Bureau does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table 13: Populations with a Disability
Disability Type by Age
Corcoran Kings County
Persons % Persons %
Population under 18 years w/disability 103 2.3% 1,498 3.70% With a hearing difficulty - 0.0% 193 0.50%
With a vision difficulty 53 1.2% 480 1.20%
With a cognitive difficulty 38 0.9% 890 2.20%
With an ambulatory difficulty 17 0.4% 127 0.30%
With a self-care difficulty 11 0.2% 219 0.50%
Population 18 to 64 years w/disability 874 12.5% 8,357 10.70% With a hearing difficulty 170 2.4% 1,632 2.10%
With a vision difficulty 187 2.7% 1,354 1.70%
With a cognitive difficulty 252 3.6% 3,009 3.80%
With an ambulatory difficulty 577 8.3% 4,087 5.20%
With a self-care difficulty 253 3.6% 1,424 1.80%
With an independent living difficulty 421 6.0% 3,094 4.00% Population 65 years and over w/disability 794 45.6% 6,179 40.80% With a hearing difficulty 189 10.8% 2,657 17.60%
With a vision difficulty 188 10.8% 1,265 8.40%
With a cognitive difficulty 278 16.0% 1,458 9.60%
With an ambulatory difficulty 590 33.9% 3,807 25.10%
With a self-care difficulty 256 14.7% 1,500 9.90%
With an independent living difficulty 489 28.1% 2,659 17.60%
Note: Numbers represent people, not disabilities. Persons may report more than one type of disability Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S1810 and C18108
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community -based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. Kings County is served by the Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) which is based in Fresno. During 2014, CVRC served approximately 16,200 clients, of which about 900 to 1,000 lived in Kings County (0). CVRC provides diagnosis, evaluation, and case management services. Kings County Rehabilitation Center in Hanford also offers rehabilitation, vocational and life training, and operates four group homes for mentally and physically handicapped individuals. State and federal law mandate minimum accessibility standards for housing. For example, local governments that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. At least 5% of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2% must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. New multi-family housing must be built so that: 1) the public and common use portions of such units are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons 2) the doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs; and 3) all units contain adaptive design features. In addition, state law requires all jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodation in the application of housing policies and regulations.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-23 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Figure 5: Population with a Disability
M E RCED
COU NTY \9
SAN BEN ITO
COU N TY
llil
llil
Diab/a
Range
~ 5252 ft
Legend
c:::J CA county .
- - -, CA county selection
' -- .
- City Boundanes ..
c::::J . ·th a disab 1hty ulat,on w1 Percent of pop
<; < 10%
B 10% -20%
20% -30%
30% - 40%
- ., - > 40 ,o
Cities in Kings . count y
c:::J Avenal
KINGS COUN TY Tu/e River
llil \
/
.0
C
KER N COUt!TY
.<::.
o>
Krngs Rht~r
[ill
N Miles
A o ■--5----:10
SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | NOV 2023 | DRAFT
1A-15
As seen in Figure 5, four of the six census tracts contain between 10% -20% of a population with a disability.
This trend exists in much of the city limits of Hanford, Lemoore, Avenal, and northern parts of unincorporated Kings County.
D) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To better understand fair housing, HUD uses the designation Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) which requires:
• a non-white population of 50 percent or more in a metropolitan or micropolitan area, or a non-white population of 20 percent or more outside of these areas. • extreme poverty, defined as census tracts with either 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line or with a poverty rate of three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
None of the census tracts in Corcoran is identified as a R/ECAP as shown in Figure 6.
HCD has a designation called Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA) which is also based on two factors:
• A location quotient based on the percentage of white, non- Hispanic or Latino population in the census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for the COG region. • If the median income for the census tract is greater than 1.5 times the COG median income or State median income, whichever is lower.
As mentioned in the Income Distribution section above, the median income is $42,997, which is 69.9% of the Kings County median income of $61,556. Compared to the state of California, where the median income is $78,672, Corcoran's median household income is lower at 54.7% of the California median. When considering race and income in Corcoran, the numbers are quite different. As seen on Table 7, Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin table, the median household income for White Alone Non-Hispanic households is $55,786 which is approximately $12,000 m ore than Corcoran’s average median income. The median household income for Hispanic or Latino of Any Race is $41,591, which is approximately $14,000 less than the White Alone Non-Hispanic population but similar to Corcoran’s median household income. The American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone Non- Hispanic population makes significantly less than both groups by earning $29,000.
SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-15
Figure 6: Local RCAAs
Source
-
Whitley ve
KI NGS COUNTY
Cor;coran
(l..l
>
<(
..i:: .....
'°
11 11
I
I
I
Waukena
'o
T ULARE C0UN T Y
%
~
~
a:,~
@]
Legend
C=::J City Boundaries
':: : :, CA county selection
Cities in Kings County
[=:J Avenal
[=:J Corcoran
[=:J Hanford
[=:J Lemoore
Not a RCAA
- RCAA
SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | NOV 2023 | DRAFT
1A-15
E) Disparities in Access To Opportunity
The Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources, such as high -paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators in 2017.
It uses economic and education indicators that include the following:
• Percentage of population with income above 200% of federal poverty line • Percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, • Percentage of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces • Value of owner-occupied units
• Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards • Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards • Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time • Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced price lunch The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps help to identify areas within the community that provide stronger access to economic, environmental, or educational opportunities for residents or, conversely, provide more limited access to opportunities. The information from this mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low -resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.
Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20.0 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region.
It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education att ainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. “Moderate resource” areas are in the top
30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low -resource areas are those that score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($27,750 annually for a family of four in 2022).
The City of Corcoran presents a complex socio-economic landscape, as evidenced by its mixed resource distribution in the TCAC and HCD Opportunity map, as seen in Figure 7. The city is characterized by areas that are High Segregation & Poverty, Low Resource, and Moderate Resource. Corcoran faces significant challenges in bridging spatial economic disparities. These disparities necessitate nuanced policy interventions aimed at promoting equitable development.
SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-15
Figure 7: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Updated Jan 2023.
16.01 15
Whitley ve
KINGS COO NTY
14.01 Corcora __ n--'-.,......_
9801
Waukena
'o
TULARE CB UNTY
~ 0-
<:;
'::>~
Logond
I Qty Boundaries
!. : : : • CA c.ountv S@lection
C=1 ~ nsus Tratt Boundary
GtieG in Kings County
c=:::J A,"Qnal
c::::::::J Corcoran
c=::J Hanford
c=J Lemoore
- HigheGt RQsourGe
- Htgh R@sourc@
- Moderate R~ource
Low Resource
High Sagragat ion 8,, Poverr;
Missing/Insufficient Data
SECTION 1A-1: ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | NOV 2023 | DRAFT
1A-15
Transit Mobility
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the community and region daily to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.
The need to plan for and address the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Public Transportation services are available to people with lower incomes, seniors, and persons with disabilities through the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) system, overseen by the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and through the City of Corcoran’s transit system, Corcoran Area Transit (CAT). Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) is Kings County’s public transportation provider. KART provides public transit service Monday through Friday and limited service on Saturdays. KART provides transportation services to the cities of Armona, Avenal, Corcoran, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman City, Laton, Lemoore, and Stratford. KART Paratransit (origin to des tination) is available to eligible certified ADA passengers. In addition, KART provides regular transportation services to Fresno and Visalia Monday through Friday. All KART bus routes begin and end at the KART Terminal located at 504 W. 7th Street Hanford, California, west of the AMTRAK station in Downtown Hanford.
AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at city, county, and regional levels.
AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs]) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Figure 8 depicts Kings County’s AllTransit Performance score, including metrics representing average household transit access. Kings County’s overall score is 1.7, demonstrating “very low” connectivity. It is important to note that this score is for Kings County as a whole, including incorporated areas, as AllTransit does not provide a score just for the unincorporated county. Kings County’s score is consistent with comparable counties, which are typified by rural and semi -rural communities. However, the AllTransit methodology, which determines scores according to an “average” household, may not fully represent transit availability in the unincorporated areas, as the estimate is an average of both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
As is shown in Figure 9, there is a complete absence of high quality transit stops and a few CA transit stops in Corcoran. Three of the four CA transit stops in Corcoran are in census tract 9801 which contains the California State Prison. Hanford is the most transit connected jurisdiction in Kings County with an AllTransit Performance Score of
4.0. Most unincorporated areas in the central areas of Kings County are not served by transit, except for the Hanford area. Based on the information in the Kings County Transit Development Plan 2021 document, Kings County faces challenges in providing comprehensive transit services, especially in rural areas. The report identifies gaps in service and highlights the difficulty of connecting transit-dependent residents living in remote areas to services in larger communities.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024
1A-25
APPENDIX 1A: COUNTY OF KINGS
Figure 8: Kings County All Transit Performance Score
Source: AllTransit.cnt.org, 2022
Trans it Service
Whitley Av
Ave 144
Overall trans it score that looks at connect ivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. ■ < 1 ■ 1-2 ■ 2 -4 ■ 4 - 5 ■ S-6 6-7 7-9 9 +
AIITransit TM Perfo rmance Score
1.7 City: Corcoran, CA
Very low comb ination of trips per week and
number of jobs accessible enabling negligible
number of peop le to take transit t o work
On Average Househo lds have:
Transit Trips per Week wit hin ½ Mile
rf Transit Routes w ithin ½ M ile
@lljl lobs Accessible in 30-minute t rip
l•l(•d Comm uters Who Use Transit
Show Transit Agencies (3)
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 1A-25 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 9: Kings County High quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 mile)
Source: Caltrans, 2022. U.S.; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Updated 2022.
16.01 KINGS CO0NTY
14.01 Corcora=n:.:--.-----4
au ena
TULARE COUNTY
Legend
i== City Boondaries
~ : : :, CA county selection
c:::::::J Ce,1sus Tract Boundary
Cities in Kings County
c:::::::J Avenal
c:::::::J Corcoran
c:::::::J Hanford
c:::::::J Lemoore
CZZ: 1/ 2. Mile fro m High Quality Transit Area
0 High Quality Transit Stops
• CA Transit Stops
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-30 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Employment Opportunities
Kings County’s economy has an important impact on housing needs. Employment growth typically results in increased housing demand in areas that serve as regional employment centers. Moreover, the type of occupation and income levels for new employment also affects housing demand. This section describes the economic and employment patterns in Kings County and how these patterns influence housing needs.
Figure 10: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP03
Kings County supports a diversified economy as illustrated in Figure 10. This figure shows the proportion of jobs held by residents (civilian employed population 16 years and over) living in the c ounty. Based on the Census ACS 2016- 2020 information, the education, health care, social assistance industry was the largest employer of Kings County residents, providing approximately 10,800 jobs, or 20% of workforce. As important as agriculture is to the county, the agriculture sector was the second largest employer of its residents, which employed 8,300 residents or 15% of the workforce. Kings County’s civilian labor force was estimated at 57,800, with an unemployment rate of 7.0 % (not seasonally adjusted). This compares to the statewide unemployment rate of 4.1%. However, compared to recent trends, Kings County’s unemployment rate has decreased significantly from the 2020 annual average unemployment rate of 12.0%. Historically, agriculture has played a key role in Kings County’s economy. Agriculturally oriented counties tend to have higher unemployment rates and greater seasonal variations in unemployment. Kings County is ranked 8 th among
California counties in agricultural production with an annual gross value of $2. 5 billion. According to the Kings County 2022 Annual Agricultural Crop Report, milk remains the C ounty’s leading commodity, followed by pistachios (second) and cotton (third). With climate change and the long-term severe drought as well as the 2023 wet winter/spring, it is uncertain to what extent future water supplies will affect agriculture.
Education, health care,
social assistance
20%
Agriculture
15%
Public admin.
13%
Retail trade
10%
Arts, entertainment,
recreation,
accomodation, food
services
8%
Manufacturing
7%
Professional, scientific,
management, admin.
7%
Transportation,
warehousing, utilities
6%
Construction
4%
Other services, except
public admin.
3%
Finance, insurance, real
estate
3%
Wholesale trade
3%
Information
1%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 11: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute.
Sources: Caltrans, 2022; Smart Locations Database, 2018.
16.01 15
Whitley ve
KINGS COl'.JNTY
14.01 Coi:cora="---....--
9801
RAN
Waukena
<o
TULARE C0 UNTY
~ 9-
~ -:::,~
@] ~
/
r
Legend
----i City BO<Jndaries
'= : : :, CA county selection
~ O!onsus Tl'llct Boundary
Cities in Kings County
c:::J Avenal
~ Corcoran
~ Hanford
~ Lemoore
Transit Area
=:::i 1/ 2 Mile from High Quality Transit Area
O High Quality Transit Stops
Jobs within 45-minute transit commute
No Data
0 I - 2,500
- 2,501 - 5,000
- 5,001 - 10,000
- 10,001 - 25,000
- 25,001 - 50,000
- 50,001 - 100,000
- 100,00 1 • 250,000
- > 250,000
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-32 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Jobs-Housing Balance and Commute Patterns
Commuting patterns in Kings County have an important implication for housing needs. Larger employers in the county (e.g., three state prisons, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and agricultural industries) generate a significant number of jobs. However, the workforce employed at these institutions or in the agricultural industries may live in other communities for a var iety of reasons, including preferences, the availability of suitable housing, or other reasons.
Commuting patterns show the relationship between where people live and where they work. Long commuting distances increase traffic congestion that strains the existing overcrowded road and highways infrastructure systems that are often in need of maintenance. Long commuting distances also contribute to poor air quality, increases expenses to the commuting workforce, and has been shown to have negative consequences on personal health. One of the aims of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan is to direct new housing growth to employment centers to balance the jobs-housing ratio and decrease commuting distances.
Table 14 shows that over 46.9% of the workforce in the city of Corcoran aged 16 years and older who do not work at home travel less than 15 minutes to work and another 17.8% of workers travel 15-30 minutes to work. The average time to work for countywide workers was 24 minutes.
Table 14: Travel Time to Work
Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home. ; Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S0801
Table 15: Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers Note: Workers included those 16 years and over who did not work from home. ; Source: Census ACS 2016-2020 Table S0801
Travel Time to Work Corcoran Kings County
Less than 15 minutes 46.9% 36.80%
15-30 minutes 17.8% 32.00%
30 to 59 minutes 28.6% 25.10%
60 or more minutes 6.7% 6.10%
Average Travel Time 24 min. 23 min.
Travel Time to Work Corcoran Kings County
Number of Resident Workers
(Age 16 and over) 4,119 56,560
Work in Same City/County) 35.3% 75.6%
Work Outside of City/County 64.7% 24.1%
Total 100% 100%
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-33 SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Educational Opportunities
The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. The Kings County Board of Education establishes the mission and primary objectives for the Kings County Superintendent of Schools and ensures that activities and programs remain focused on the goals identified within the California Department of Education educational rules and regulations. According to the Kings County office of education as of Oct 2021 there are a total of 19,429 students enrolled in elementary schools and about 8,179 students in high schools across the county as per data submitted by the districts. Figure 12 below shows some of the school districts in Kings County.
Figure 12: School districts in Kings County
Source: Kings County, Cal EM
Vicinity Map
STATE or CALIFOR NIA
-- Kng9 Cow,y Map Rood!I
-- l(jngs Co~fy ~~s
--.. EZ:j T0<hi-Y- Tribc
~ NJ\l:lllA'6Sla11onLemoare
[--1 ~ Cooofy Cjijes Comnuiitics
(Ii Klflg$ co orrioe r1 4.l~IM
Schoo l Districts
OORCORAN JOINT lJ IRED
HA.NFORDJOINTtM ION HIGH
LEMOORE UNION HIGH
Reef - S1mset
Unified
FRESNO
COUNTY
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-34
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Farmworkers
Kings County is one of the state’s major agricultural areas, ranking 8th among California counties in total agricultural production. According to the Kings County Agricultural Commissioner, 84% of the total land area in the County is devoted to farmland. Table 16 shows the County’s top three leading agricultural products in 2022 were milk ($999 million), pistachios ($228 million), and cotton ($192 million).
Recent Census data in Table 17 shows that 15% of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked in agriculture and related industries. Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers were in this industry. This was followed by Corcoran workers at 30%.
Table 16 presents the number of farms and hired farm workers in Kings County. According to the 2017 U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census estimates, there were 507 farms and a total of almost 7,000 hired farm workers countywide. The largest number of workers (5,820) were employed at farms with 10 or more employees or 83% of the countywide total number of hired workers. Also, there were more permanent hired workers (worked more than 150 days) than seasonal workers (worked less than 150 days) for bo th farm operations with less than 10 employees and with more than 10 employees.
Table 16: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County
Crop Rank Value
Milk 1 $999,866,000
Pistachios 2 $228,785,000
Cotton 3 $192,811,000
Tomatoes, Processed 4 $177,492,000
Cattle & Calves 5 $151,274,000
Almonds, Total 6 $132,323,000
Corn, Silage 7 $123,941,000
Alfalfa, Hay 8 $67,540,000
Wheat, Silage 9 $60,112,000
Plums 10 $55,245,000
Source: Kings County, Dept. of Agriculture, 2022 Crop Report, September 2023
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-35
Table 17: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table DP-3
Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. According to an article in Rural Migration News, the average hourly wage for all California farmworkers in the years 2015-2019 was approximately $12 This is equivalent to approximately $25,000/year for full-time work. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations (https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2805).
The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farm workers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower -income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.
California has a statewide shortage of farmworker housing projects. For instance, the number of agricultural employee housing facilities registered with the California HCD has dramatically declined since the 1950s.
Between 1955 and 1982, grower-registered facilities declined from 9,000 to 1,414 camps. By 1998, only 500 camps were registered with HCD, none of which were in Kings County. According to growers, the dramatic decline in labor camps is due to the high cost of maintaining housing and the climate of litigation facing growers who maintain camps. Additionally, most farm owners/managers hire most of their workers through temporary agencies for planting, picking, pruning, or other specific tasks, so that providing full-time housing for workers is not practical.
Although no farmworker camps exist in Kings County, the County does have a significant number of government-subsidized housing projects (e.g., Section 515 and public housing) that house farmworkers and their families. Many farmworkers live in mobile homes on the farming site. A new farmworker housing project was completed in Hanford during the 2003-2008 planning period. That project involved the renovation of an existing former motel into temporary and/or long-term, permanent agricultural employee housing. The project included 24 units plus parking, courtyard, children’s play areas and open space.
In addition, there is a 40- unit apartment complex in unincorporated Kettleman City that serve s farm labor families. This apartment includes 10 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units, and 10 four-bedroom units, with approximately 70-100 farmworkers residing in the apartment complex. The Constraints analysis contains Jurisdiction of Civilian Employed
Pop. (16 and over) Number of Agricultural Workers % of Total Workers Avenal 1,617 45%
Corcoran 1,275 30%
Hanford 2,213 9%
Lemoore 692 6%
Unincorporated 2,474 22%
Kings County 8,271 15%
I I
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-36
a discussion of each jurisdiction’s land use and zoning policies and regulations regarding farmworker housing.
In communities with large farmworker populations, farmworker housing needs are met through homeownership assistance and rehabilitation loans.
Table 18: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County
Farmworkers No. of Farms No. of Hired Workers
Percent of Total County
Hired Workers
Total Hired Farm Labor 507 6,998
Farm operations with less than 10 employees 351 1,178 17% Permanent (> 150 days) 275 1,034 15%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 246 677 10%
Farm operations with 10 or more employees 156 5,820 83% Permanent (> 150 days) 96 3,046 44%
Seasonal (< 150 days) 49 2,241 32%
Source: USDA, 2017 Census of Agriculture
Most loans under both types of programs are issued to people working in the agricultural industry. Moreover, many occupants of Section 515 projects and other subsidized projects are also employed in the farming industry. In Lemoore the farmworker population is significantly smaller, although many farmworkers also access standard homeownership and/or rehabilitation loans. The Housing Plan (Chapter 5) includes programs to address the housing and supportive services needs of farm workers.
Environmental Health
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reports CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores for the unincorporated county, suggesting relatively adverse environmental conditions throughout the county. (see Figure 13). According to OEHHA, except for some of the smaller tracts in the center of the cities of Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran the rest of the areas have scores above the 90th percentile. The environmental conditions in Kings County likely due to the dominance of commercial agricultural practices and natural resource extraction, both of which are known to have negative impacts on the surrounding areas resulting from air pollution and other contaminants.
The primary indicators leading to the high environmental scores as reported by OEHHA’s CalEnviroScreen vary across the county, but include ozone, particulate matter (PM) 2.5, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic releases, drinking water contaminants, chemical cleanup, lead in housing, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water, and solid waste. Ozone, diesel particulate, and PM 2.5, forms of pollution generated by car traffic and industrial uses, score higher throughout the county. In the unincorporated county, pesticide use, groundwater threats, and solid waste facilities are more prevalent than in urbanized areas, reflecting the presence of agricultural industries and chemical and waste storage outside of urban areas. Nearly all of Kings County is Senate Bill (SB) 535 -qualifying disadvantaged communities excluding areas around Lemoore, north of Hanford and some tracts in Corcoran. This indicates that the unincorporated county represents an area of potential concern regarding fair housing and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and a concentration of vulnerable populations. The City of Corcoran predominantly
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-37
consists of areas which have a CalEnviroScreen count between 50 and 70% in most places and a above 75% in northern and eastern edges indicating a moderate to high level of pollution burden and vulnerability compared to other areas in California.
Further, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) develops flood maps that identify areas with the highest risk of flooding, differentiating them by the degree of severity and frequency of flooding anticipated. In Kings County, while large pieces of land, including Corcoran, are classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a high- risk for flooding. Flood zones include Zone AO, AE, AH, and A, which indicate the depth of the 1.0% annual chance of flooding, and areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding (Figure 14). One significant concern is the increased risk of flooding in the region, especially due to subsidence around the Tule River to the east of Corcoran. This subsidence has led to the merging of the Deer Creek and Tule River flood zones near the prison complex in Corcoran. The merging of these floodplains poses a challenge in diverting water away from critical areas, including the prisons which are situated between the Tulare River and Deer Creek. Furthermore, the historic droughts over the past two decades hav e diminished the effectiveness of levees in managing floodwaters. Dried -out levees lose structural integrity and become more prone to spreading.
This issue is prevalent across the Central Valley's extensive levee system. The City of Corcoran undertook efforts to rebuild its levee in 2017 to guard against the potential re -emergence of Tulare Lake. However, there is concern that these measures might not be sufficient, and efforts are underway to raise the levee by an additional four feet along its entire 15-mile length.
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 13: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile)
Source: Caltrans, 2022; OEHHA, 2021.
Legend
C=:J Qty Boundaries
'::: : 1 CA eou~1 selection
c:::::J Census Tract Boundary
Citias in Kings County
c:::::::J Avenal
c::::::::J Corcoran
c::::::::J Hanford
r:::::::::l Lemoore
I l/2 Mile from High Quality Trons~ Areo
~ High Quality Transit Stops
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ~ Percentile Sc::ore
- 0 - 25%
- >25 - 50%
- > 50 - 75%
- > 75 -100%
- None
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 14: Flood Hazard Zones
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2022; OEHHA, 2021; CalFire, updated 2023.
43 uy.>11d
IJS I lood ll111ard /\1c>1s ( 11 Ml\)
- 1% Aimu.i1 ~ nee FSood H,uiard
- 0.2% ru1uu1:1I dW:1111.'C rluotl I l;ut ul
- Rt:uul.1to1y f k>odw,:sy
SpP.r.l."11 t-lnotb1,1y
r ulwto CoudiUOll't 1 % Annu.il Ch~lltl:.' floo d
H;t,-~m
Afl:'a wilh ~ UC.:4:'tl Ri,;k D.H lu U",w
Fifi: Hal.ire.I ~ -•1:11ily Zum,•.s
ModNAt~
- High
- \\:1y11i1,1h
D <.b r::;u::; lu:ic.l Uouml::uy
Otie.s in Kings County
O tw<.:rn:11
C] c:ofl'.or,-in
t::J H,·inford
O l.l:<1100,"-'
D c:Ar.ounry
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-40 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
F) Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk
Housing Mobility
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a lower turnover rate than rental housing. The vacancy rate also indicates the match b etween the demand and supply of housing. Table 19 details housing tenure and vacancies in Kings County and incorporated communities according to the Census ACS 2016-2020 estimates. Vacancy rates of 5% to 6% for rental housing and 1.5% to 2.0% for ownership housing are generally considered to be optimum. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and diminished affordability.
Table 19: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates
Housing Type
Corcoran Kings County
Units % Units %
Occupied housing units 3,845 91.5% 43,604 94.20%
Owner-occupied housing units 1,789 42.6% 23,368 50.50%
Avg. HH size of owner-occupied units 3.24 3.12
Renter-occupied housing units 2,056 48.9% 20,236 43.70% Avg. HH size of renter-occupied units 3.57 3.17
Vacant housing units 356 8.5% 2,663 5.80%
For rent 111 2.6% 446 1.00%
Rented, not occupied 19 0.5% 140 0.30%
For sale only 18 0.4% 426 0.90%
Sold, not occupied 58 1.4% 194 0.40%
For seasonal or occasional use - 0.0% 54 0.10%
All other vacant 50 3.6% 1,403 3.00%
Homeowner vacancy rate 1.0% 1.80%
Rental vacancy rate 5.1% 2.10%
Total housing units 4,201 100.0% 46,267 100.00%
Source: Census, ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP04 and B25004
In Corcoran, 91.5% of the housing units are occupied, which is slightly lower than Kings County's 94.20%.
The proportion of owner -occupied units in Corcoran is 42.6%, with an average household size of 3.24, indicating a preference for ownership but at a rate lower than Kings County's 50.50% ownership rate. The average household size in Kings County for owner-occupied units is 3.12, slightly smaller than in Corcoran.
This suggests that rental housing in Corcoran tends to accommodate larger households. The breakdown of these vacancies is varied, with Corcoran having a higher proportion of units for rent and a notable number of units sold but not occupied. This data illustrates how Corcoran's housing market differs from the broader Kings County area, with a higher vacancy rate, a lower rate of homeownership, and larger average household sizes for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied units.
When examining housing tenure by race, the White Alone Non-Hispanic population owns at lower rate than
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-41 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Kings County and California as a whole,13.9% and 17.2% less respectively. On the other hand, the Hispanic or Latino of Any Race own and rent at similar rates in Corcoran, Kings County, and California. In Corcoran and California as a whole, the Black or African American Alone population own and rent at similar rates.
However, in Kings County, there is a higher proportion of the Black or African American Alone population that rents, 70.9% while Corcoran and California rent 6.4% and 9.6% less.
Notably, in Corcoran, the White Alone Non-Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native Alone, and the Hispanic or Latino of Any Race own and rent at similar rates , with a little over half of each respective population renting more than owning. It is also notable that while the Asian household population is small, 18 households, every household owns. In Corcoran, Some Other Race Alone owns at a rate of 61.9% which is only second to the rate of the Asian Alone population and about 20% higher than its counterparts in Kings County and California.
Table 20: Housing Tenure by Race or Hispanic
Origin
City of
Corcoran Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
White Alone Non-Hispanic
Owner Occupied 1,162 42.2% 17,156 56.1% 4,831,347 59.4% Renter Occupied 1,594 57.8% 13,444 43.9% 3,308,833 40.6% Black Or African American Alone
Owner Occupied 58 38.7% 684 29.1% 286,043 35.5%
Renter Occupied 92 61.3% 1,666 70.9% 520,690 64.5%
American Indian And Alaska
Native Alone
Owner Occupied 9 45.0% 165 31.7% 48,100 49.2%
Renter Occupied 11 55.0% 356 68.3% 49,657 50.8%
Asian Alone
Owner Occupied 18 100.0% 1,137 67.2% 1,111,582 59.7%
Renter Occupied 0 0.0% 554 32.8% 749,308 40.3%
Native Hawaiian And Other
Pacific Islander Alone
Owner Occupied 0 1,515.2% 37 80.4% 18,182 45.4%
Renter Occupied 0 1,515.2% 9 19.6% 21,854 54.6%
Some Other Race Alone
Owner Occupied 374 61.9% 2,490 43.6% 576,852 41.3%
Renter Occupied 230 38.1% 3,215 56.4% 820,358 58.7%
Two Or More Races
Owner Occupied 168 56.6% 1,699 63.1% 369,212 48.6%
Renter Occupied 129 43.4% 992 36.9% 391,096 51.4%
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race
Owner Occupied 1,349 46.2% 9,256 45.2% 1,741,159 44.9%
Renter Occupied 1,573 53.8% 11,219 54.8% 2,133,185 55.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-42 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
To address disproportionate housing needs, one of Corcoran’s strategies is to implement Program 2.14 Promote Equal Housing Opportunities includes actions like the increase of affordable housing opportunities through grant funding, incentives to developers and programs to support first time home buyers, provide fair housing outreach education through Council staff and Self-Help Enterprises, expand media marketing through social media.
Housing Typology
As of 2020, the City of Corcoran has 3,845 households and 4,201 housing units. From 1980 to 2020, Corcoran’s households increased by 88.48%. In the same span of time, the number of housing units increased by 105.93%. There was a particularly large jump in households and housing units from 2000 to 2010, close to 30%.
In the City of Corcoran, the percent of increase of housing units outpaced the percentage of increase of households in every decade from 1980 to 2020.
According to Table 22, more residents in Corcoran live in housing units constructed in the last 30 years compared to residents in California in general. In California, the largest share of residents live in housing units built between 1970 to 1979, followed by units built between 1980 to 1989, and then 1950 to 1950. For Corcoran residents, the most live in units built between 1990 to 1999, followed by 2000 to 2009, and then from 1970 to 1979.
Approximately half of Corcoran’s housing stock is 3-bedroom units, followed by 2-bedroom units, and then 4-bedroom units. 1 bedroom and studios make up 9.25% of the housing stock. Finally, 5+ bedroom units make up 1% of the housing stock. From the year 2010 to 2020, 2-bedroom units saw the largest increase in proportion and unit production. Studio units experienced the second highest increase in proportion while 3- bedroom units experienced the second highest increase in unit production. Approximately half of Corcoran’s housing stock is 3-bedroom units, followed by 2-bedroom units, and then 4-bedroom units. 1 bedroom and studios make up 9.25% of the housing stock. Finally, 5+ bedroom units make up 1% of the housing stock.
From the year 2010 to 2020, 2-bedroom units saw the largest increase in proportion and unit production.
Studio units experienced the second highest increase in proportion while 3-bedroom units experienced the second highest increase in unit production. As seen on Table 23, Corcoran consists of 18.7% of 2-person family households and 16.4% of 1 person nonfamily households, for a total of 35.1%. These two households’ housing needs can be met by 1 bedroom and studio units but there are only 9.5% of these units available. There may be units where multiple 2-person family or 1 person nonfamily households are sharing housing units for affordability, thus removing larger units off the market for larger family households.
Therefore, additional 1 bedroom and studio units should be incentivized.
In contrast, Corcoran consists of a larger share of large households, 5 or more people, compared to California; large households make up 26.1% of Corcoran’s households. For comparison, large households make up 19.1% of Kings County households and 13.7% of California’s households. Therefore, Corcoran has quite a large proportion of large households. Housing needs for these households can be met well by 4+ bedroom units. However, in Corcoran, 13.9%, or 585 housing units are 4+ bedroom which is significantly lower than the 1,005 large households present. From 2010 to 2020, 4+ bedroom units increased by 15.6%; in 2020.
Although the City implemented density bonuses for developers, the amount of 5+ units decreased from 1990 to 2020; 2,208 5+ units to 2,187 5+ units. This seems to align with building permit data as seen on Table 25.
The small rate of 5+ unit production paired with possible demolition might explain the slight decrease of these types of units in roughly the last 30 years.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-43 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
In 2019, the City of Corcoran authorized 50 building permits of which 49 were for one housing unit and one was for a two-housing unit structure.
The City of Corcoran’s Program 2.16 Update and Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in Compliance with State Laws lays out multiple action items including:
• Add a new Low-Moderate Land Use and Zoning Classification • Permit a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 24 units in the Medium Density Residential Designation
• Permit a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 30 units in the High Density Residential Designation
These program actions will allow developers more opportunities to develop more higher density buildings.
Table 21: Total Households Over Time
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Households 2,040 2,533 2,769 3,594 3,845
Percent Change 24.17% 9.32% 29.79% 6.98%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T3), 1990(SF1:P3), 2000(SF1:P15); ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003
Table 22: Total Housing Units Over Time
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Units 2,040 2,714 3,016 3,958 4,201
Percent Change 33.04% 11.13% 31.23% 6.14%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T65), 1990(STF1:H1), 2000(SF1:H1); ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B2001
Table 23: Total Housing Units by Type
City of
Corcoran Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total 4,201 46,267 14,210,945
1, Detached 2,918 69.5% 33,531 72.5% 8,206,621 57.7%
1, Attached 256 6.1% 2,169 4.7% 1,009,488 7.1%
2 27 0.6% 1,262 2.7% 339,846 2.4%
3 or 4 286 6.8% 2,636 5.7% 773,994 5.4%
5 to 9 115 2.7% 1,655 3.6% 840,296 5.9%
10 to 19 29 0.7% 933 2.0% 721,132 5.1%
20 to 49 162 3.9% 786 1.7% 705,450 5.0%
50 or More 248 5.9% 1,430 3.1% 1,083,247 7.6%
Mobile Home 160 3.8% 1,795 3.9% 515,666 3.6%
Boat, Rv, Van, Etc. 0 0.0% 70 0.2% 15,205 0.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-44 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Table 24: Total Housing Units by Type
Over Time
2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2020 Percent
Total 3,780 3,921 4,201
1, Detached 2,774 73.4% 2,721 69.4% 2,918 69.5%
1, Attached 127 3.4% 115 2.9% 256 6.1%
2 121 3.2% 103 2.6% 27 0.6%
3 or 4 288 7.6% 258 6.6% 286 6.8%
5 to 9 90 2.4% 256 6.5% 115 2.7%
10 to 19 0 0.0% 49 1.2% 29 0.7%
20 to 49 29 0.8% 66 1.7% 162 3.9%
50 or More 166 4.4% 127 3.2% 248 5.9%
Mobile Home 175 4.6% 224 5.7% 160 3.8%
Boat, Rv, Van, Etc. 10 0.3% 2 0.1% 0 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024
Table 25: Building Permits by Number of Structures Authorized Number of Structures
Authorized
City of
Corcoran
City of
Corcoran
Kings
County
Kings
County California California
One Housing Unit 49 98.0% 300 98.7% 56,085 94.6%
Two Housing Units 1 2.0% 1 0.3% 1,210 2.0%
Three and Four Housing Units 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 470 0.8%
Five or More Housing Units 0 0.0% 3 1.0% 1,512 2.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey 2019, Table AD:T2 Table 26: Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
City of
Corcoran Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total: 3,845 43,604 13,103,114
2014 Or Later 192 5.0% 1,414 5.0% 294,667 2.2%
2010 To 2013 35 0.9% 1,057 0.9% 234,646 1.8%
2000 To 2009 539 14.0% 7,557 14.0% 1,432,955 11.0%
1990 To 1999 600 15.6% 8,348 15.6% 1,448,367 11.1%
1980 To 1989 438 11.4% 6,287 11.4% 1,967,306 15.1%
1970 To 1979 520 13.5% 6,621 13.5% 2,290,081 17.5%
1960 To 1969 416 10.8% 4,424 10.8% 1,740,922 13.3%
1950 To 1959 409 10.6% 3,156 10.6% 1,767,353 13.5%
1940 To 1949 368 9.6% 2,122 9.6% 763,029 5.8%
1939 Or Earlier 328 8.5% 2,618 8.5% 1,163,788 8.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036
Local Median Housing Costs
In the City of Corcoran, the median monthly housing cost is $892. For the wider Kings County, the median monthly housing cost is higher by $202. In contrast, California’s median is significantly higher by an additional $796. From 2010 to 2020, the City of Corcoran’s median monthly housing cost increased by 9% while Kings County increased by 14%. California’s percent change was more than double than the City of Corcoran.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-45 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
In Corcoran, the median monthly owner cost with a mortgage as a percentage of household income is 18.2% and 11.8% for those homeowners without a mortgage. The percentage that renters spend is much higher at
30.7 percent which is a little less than the acceptable standard to spend on housing, one third of income.
However, as seen below, overcrowding and overpayment is an issue in Corcoran. It is important to note these figures are medians. The following sections provide further context of fair and affordable housing by analyzing overcrowding, overpayment, and homelessness.
Table 27: Median Monthly Housing Costs
Over Time
2010 2015 2020 Percent Change
(2010 to 2020)
City of Corcoran $818 $787 $892 9.0%
Kings County $960 $978 $1,094 14.0%
California $1,409 $1,419 $1,688 19.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Table B25105
Table 28: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
2010 2015 2020
Median Gross Rent 31.2% 32.8% 30.7%
Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Total 26.0% 25.1% 18.2% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units with a Mortgage 29.9% 29.5% 20.2% Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs - Units without a Mortgage 10.1% 11.4% 11.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-Year Estimates), Tables B25071, B25092
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens; and to be severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of adequate income for housing.
Table 29 details the percentage of households that live in overcrowded situations. Overcrowding is more prevalent among renters than owners. For example, countywide, 12% of renters and 5% of owners reported more than one person per room. The difference between renters and owner overcrowding was even more pronounced for the City of Corcoran where 20% were renters and 9% were owners. Overall, there exists a highest percentage of total households (renters and owners) living in overcrowded in Corcoran at 15%, while the countywide percentage was 8% in 2020.
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-46 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Table 29: Overcrowding by Tenure
According to the 2016- 2020 ACS, In Corcoran, among the 1,789 owner -occupied households, a lower percentage (47.1%) have 0.50 or fewer occupants per room compared to 60.7% in Kings County, indicating more spacious living conditions in Kings County. For Corcoran’s renter -occupied households (2,056 in total), only 27.6% have 0.50 or fewer occupants per room, which is lower than Kings County's 39.7%, suggesting more pronounced overcrowding among renters in Corcoran. The data also shows that in Corcoran, the percentage of renter -occupied households with higher occupants per room (1.01 to 1.50 and above) is significantly higher than in Kings County, indicating more severe overcrowding among renters in Corcoran.
This trend of higher overcrowding in renter-occupied households as compared to owner-occupied households is consistent in both Corcoran and Kings County but is more acute in Corcoran. These differences could be attributed to various factors including the availability, size, and type of rental properties, economic conditions, and population density in these areas.
Overpayment
State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower-income households that have limited resources for other living expenses.
As shown in Table 30, a significant portion of lower -income households in each community overpaid for housing according to HUD CHAS data (special tabulations based on the Census ACS). However, the overpayment rate varied by tenure and income level. More than half of all very- low- and extremely-low- income households in all jurisdictions, both owners and renters, were reported to be overpaying. In most communities, however, more rental households than owner households were overpaying. Few households with incomes above the median faced overpayment – often less than 10% of households.
Occupants per Room Corcoran Kings County
Total households 3,845 43,604
Owner occupied: 1,789 23,368
0.50 or less 47.1% 60.70%
0.51 to 1.00 43.7% 34.20%
1.01 to 1.50 8.6% 3.90%
1.51 to 2.00 0.3% 0.70%
2.01 or more 0.4% 0.50%
Renter occupied: 2,056 20,236
0.50 or less 27.6% 39.70%
0.51 to 1.00 52.1% 48.10%
1.01 to 1.50 15.0% 8.70%
1.51 to 2.00 4.0% 2.90%
2.01 or more 1.2% 0.60%
Source : Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25014
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-47 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Table 30: Household Overpayment by Tenure
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
These figures indicate that housing affordability is a more critical issue for renters than homeowners in Corcoran, particularly for those with lower incomes. The data also suggests that, overall, residents in Corcoran, especially renters, face greater challenges with housing affordability compared to those in the broader Kings County area. In figure below it could be noted that the percentage of overcrowded units lies between 10 and 15% in most areas while it's between 5.19 and 10% towards the northern eastern regions. The neighboring areas to Corcoran have relatively less percent of overcrowded units which are less than 5.19%.
State and federal housing law defines overpayment as a household paying more than 30% of gross income for housing expenses, including utilities. Housing overpayment is especially problematic for lower -income households that have limited resources for other living expenses . In Figures 16 and 17 the data reveals the overpayment by renters and homeowners at tract level. Overpayment by renters is less in southern part of Corcoran while it's above 20 and 40% for homeowners. The northern and neighboring regions have higher levels of overpayment by renters that is between 40 and 60%. While it's lesser in the case overpayment by homeowners in these same regions.
Total and Percent Change Cost-Burdened Owner Households Over Time (1980-2020) Income Category Corcoran Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 73.7% 79.00%
>30% to <=50% 68.0% 68.60%
>50% to <=80% 43.8% 48.30%
>80% to <=100% 19.7% 32.80%
>100% 4.0% 7.40%
Total 27.8% 22.50%
Renters
<= 30% 73.0% 79.30%
>30% to <=50% 69.0% 78.30%
>50% to <=80% 51.0% 57.00%
>80% to <=100% 12.0% 22.50%
>100% 3.0% 6.40%
Total 47.5% 43.20%
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-48 APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF3), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25091
124
205
339
627
35865.32% 65.37%
84.96%
-42.90%
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
Total Households
Cost-burdened Households Percent Change
- - -
SECTION 1A-3: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 15: Overcrowding in Corcoran
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 ~
Ove1 crowded Units
Pei cent of <le A~ •ay~ )
< ::i.19% (Slalew1
; ,19% lU'ro
- 10% l Y!\,
~ -~///// ~ ■
0 b=r=r'?I %
0 - l j % 2U%
- >20%
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 16: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021
16.01 9801
Waukena
<o,
TULAR E C0UN T.Y
'?::,,;.-
~
'::)~
Legend
D f'.P.nsus Trnrt Rounclnry
Oties in Kings County
c:] Allcna l
D Corcomn
D l lanford
c:J Lemoore
D Oty Boundaries
D CA county
Overpayment by Renters (2017 -2021) - ACS Tract
Leve l
Percent of Renter Households for whom Gross Rent
(contra ct Rent Plus Tenant-Paid Utllltles) Is 30.0
PP.rtP.ril or M111P. or Hrnr-.P.hold Tm:orm-!:
< 2 0 °./o
- 20% -40%
- 40 o/o - 60%
- 60% - 80%
- >8U%
APPENDIX 3: CITY OF CORCORAN
Figure 17: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021 Waukena
Whi t ley ve
<o.
T ULARE C0 UNT Y
16.01 ~ 0-
'o:
'::>~
9801
Leyend
c::::J Vc'l'1!>-us h,:n:l UuurKRl1y
Clli...s ir1 Kin u sf.t)I J111•,
c:::::J Av+m;il
r::::J C"'.on:1u;111
c:::J H,111rnul
c::::J I l-!UW:.tlll-!
~ City Ro11ndariE>S
D CA county
P\::!rr.P.nt nt Owrl!"f" HotJ~old!=. w it h Mortqagi:-s ,'Vho!.! Moulhly UVtrtc't' l.Ai!;Ui ~r ~ JO% Of Mo,i:c> of I lousi:,l1t.1~ Jr.::.omc
< 20%
20% - 10%
- 4U% · 00%
- OU% · 80%
. ,,8()%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-52
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Homelessness
In Homelessness is often the result of multiple factors that converge in a person’s life. The combination of loss of employment, inability to find a job because of the need for retraining, and high housing costs lead to some individuals and families losing their housing. For othe rs, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or drug and alcohol addictions along with an inability to access the services and long -term support needed to address these conditions. Obtaining an accurate assessment of the magnitude of the homeless population is difficult because many individuals are not visibly homeless but rather live with relatives or friends, in hotels/motels or shelters, and other temporary accommodations. To address the needs of homeless people in Kings County, the Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance (KTHA) conducted a Point-in-Time (PIT) survey of homeless people in these two counties in January 2022. The study used HUD’s definition of homelessness, which is defined as people who reside in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or places not meant for human habitation such as cars, parks, sidewalks, and abandoned buildings.
Table 31: Homeless Persons
Jurisdiction Estimated Homeless
Avenal 4
Corcoran 17
Hanford 260
Lemoore 8
Unincorporated area 24
Kings County totals 313
Source: Kings/Tulare Homeless Alliance Point-in-Time Survey, 2022
Based on the 2022 PIT survey, the following portrait of the 313 homeless individuals counted in Kings County included:
• 22% chronically homeless
• 39% persons with disability
• 20% suffer from mental disability.
• 12% suffer from substance abuse problems.
• 11% victims of domestic violence
• 6% veterans
• 2% unaccompanied children
• 12% young adults under age 25
In 2022, 39% of the homeless population was housed in temporary living arrangements (31% in emergency shelter and 8% in transitional housing). Over half (61%) were unsheltered and homeless or in a car.
Table 2-29 presents the 2022 PIT homeless counts for the four cities and unincorporated areas of the County.
The table shows that the City of Hanford had the highest counted with 260 homeless individuals or 83% of the countywide total. This was followed by the unincorporated area with 24 homeless individuals. Avenal
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-53
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT had the lowest count with four homeless individuals.
Table 32: Shelter Facilities in Kings County
Source: Kings Tulare Homeless Alliance, 2023
Table 32 lists the shelter facilities in Kings County that served the homeless. It identifies an inventory of 126 emergency shelter beds (78% use rate), 27 transitional housing beds (89% use rate), 64 permanent supportive housing beds (89% use rate), 15 other permanent housing beds (93% use rate), and 103 rapid rehousing beds (100% use rate) in Kings County. Additional emergency assistance is provided by the Salvation Army in Hanford, which provides short -term assistance in the form of food, financial assistance for rent and utility bills, motel vouchers and bus or plane tickets. Corcoran Christian Aid provides food, vouchers, and other types of emergency financial assistance within Corcoran.
Total
Project Name & Organization
PIT
Beds
Use
Count
Use
Rate
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Barbara Saville Shelter - DV 15 4 27%
Barbara Saville Woman's Shelter 23 6 26%
EHA Kings 7 7 100%
PRK Holiday Lodge 57 57 100%
PRK Stardust Hotel 17 17 100%
Temporary Housing Program 7 7 100%
Total 126 98 78%
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
KGM Men's Transitional 15 15 100%
KGM Women's Transitional 6 6 100%
New Song Academy 6 3 50%
Total 27 24 89%
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Anchors II 6 4 67%
Anchors IV 6 5 83%
Grace Homes 13 13 100%
Hope Survives 6 6 100%
Kings County Act 28 28 100%
Kings VASH 5 1 20%
Total 64 57 89%
OTHER PERMANENT HOUSING
HAKC Emergency Housing Voucher 15 14 93%
Total 15 14 93%
RAPID REHOUSING
Bringing Families Home 16 16 100%
HANA 4 4 100%
Housing Support Program 76 76 100%
Kings Rapid Rehousing 1 1 100%
RRH4 Kings 6 6 100%
Total 103 103 100%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-54
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Despite these services, a significant shortage in emergency shelters and transitional housing remains. In 2007 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 2, which strengthened the planning and zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional /supportive housing. SB2 requires that all jurisdictions adopt zoning regulations that allow emergency shelters by -right in at least one zone, subject to objective development standards, or as an alternative, the jurisdiction may meet the need through a mul ti-jurisdictional agreement with up to three adjacent jurisdictions. As noted in the Constraints section, all of the jurisdictions in Kings County have adopted zoning regulations for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing in response to SB 2.
Corcoran’s Program 2.11 Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing continues work with providers to facilitate emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing. Emergency shelters are already permitted in the C-S (Service Commercial) zone.
Visalia, Kings, Tulare Counties CoC - Homelessness by Type Over Time (2005-2020)
Source: U.S. HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020).
Displacement Risk
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the level of displacement risk at the census tract level. The EDR provides three layers of displacement information. The “Overall Displacement” map layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. The dark red tracts (2 income groups), our models estimate displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “Probable”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “Probable Displacement”. In figure 1A-17 it could be observed that all the cities in the county and the southern western region are at predominant risk of At-Risk displacement. "At risk of displacement" refers to the likelihood of residents, particularly low-income renter households, being forced to move out of their neighborhoods due to various factors. This concept is often evaluated in the context of gentrification, rising housing costs, and changing neighborhood dynamics. The 95 110 123
143
138 184
206
125
3,560
414 413 837
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2005 2010 2015 2020
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered• • •
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-55
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT southern regions of Corcoran are at lower risk of displacement while the northern and surrounding regions are risk of displacement.
According to the Urban Displacement Project's Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California, displacement risk is determined by evaluating census tract characteristics that are strongly correlated with a net loss of low-income renter populations. Essentially, a high displacement risk suggests that more low-income households are leaving a neighborhood than moving in, often due to factors like affordability, development pressures, or changes in the housing market.
For affordable housing supply, actions focusing on housing preservation and production must be utilized.
Corcoran’s Program 2.4 Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing consists of a preservation strategy for at risk projects and maintain and update at risk project inventory and actions taken. For example, Corcoran has 593 units of affordable housing for very-low, low-, and moderate-income households that are at-risk of market rate conversion in the next 10 years. The City will contact the property owners to determine their intentions, contact qualified non- profits regarding potential opt -out projects, ensure that property owners comply with noticing requirements, and more. Program 2.7 Affordable Housing Development Assistance plans to use a variety of strategies regarding production by seeking applicable grants from state and federal sources including funding specifically targeted to extremely low-income housings, provide an inventory of housing sites to interested developers, and continue to implement the density bonuses.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Figure 18: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), UCB – Urban Displacement Project, 2022 .Weitle~.r
KINGS co©Nili~
[
16.01 15
___ J _ _.r
14.01 Corcoran
9801
Waukena
<o,.
TULARE C0UN T Y
~ ;;:,-
~ '>~
l ~ J~ml
Low IJata Quailrty
Lower DisDl~cc1ncrrt R.i$k
1111 Al m ~k uf l>ii..1Jl;11:t!l1~ 11
- 1 lmorn~C1111Jp l )is,ilm:+!rntml
- 2 Income Groups 0 1:spbccmcnt
t:J Ccnsm; Tract Bounda1y
Cities In Kings County
c:::J Avl-!rn1I
c:::J OJf LOrllll
c:::::J Hantord
c:::J Lemoore
I City Boundaries
c:::::J Q\ county
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-57
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Sites Analysis
This section provides a review of available vacant sites in the City of Corcoran that allows and facilitates production of the city’s regional share of housing as required by State Law. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in the City of Corcoran. The following issues are addressed:
a. Future Housing Needs Including Segregation/Integration b. R/ECAPs and RCAAs
c. Access to Opportunity
d. Disproportionate Housing Needs
e. Sites Inventory Findings
To determine where the county has sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, the county must identify “adequate sites.” Under the State law (California Government Code section 65583[c][1], adequate sites are thos e with appropriate zoning in and development standards, with service and facilities, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of housing for all income levels.
Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) has introduced a duty to affirmatively further fair housing into California state law. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification includes not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also considers whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced li ving patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing and consider how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.
Additionally, State law requires that planning for housing be coordinated and integrated with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). To achieve this requirement, the RHNA plan must allocate housing units within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
In September 2022, KCAG adopted the 2022 RTP/SCS update, which incorporates assumptions for housing and employment growth that affect future transportation needs. To achieve the RHNA consisten cy requirement, this RHNA used the same RTP assumptions for future housing development from the present (2022) to the RTP/SCS 2050 horizon year.
The goal of the RHNA Plan is to promote a fair distribution of attainable housing among the four cities and the unincorporated County in a way that also helps meet the state’s housing goals. Attainable housing is defined as housing that is both sufficient in supply and affordably priced. The total housing units specified in the RHNA plan for each jurisdiction are not to be construed as quotas for development. The RHNA Plan only determines the number and affordability of housing units that jurisdictions need to plan for through land use
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-58
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT policies, regulations, infrastructure plans, and other housing assistance programs. Construction and development of these allocations is not a requirement of the RHNA plan. a) Future Housing Needs including Segregation/Integration The 6th Cycle RHNA for the 2024-2032 period projects the City of Corcoran’s future housing needs as 715 units; the City of Corcoran’s 5 th Cycle RHNA for the 2014- 2024 period determined a need for 9 46.
Considering the time periods, the rate of need is similar. The total housing needs include 61 units for extremely low-income (approx. 5.40% of the RHNA Very Low-Income allocation), 61 units for very low-income, 116 units for low- income, 118 units for moderate-income, and 359 units for above moderate-income. Housing for lower-income households represents 33.29% of the above housing needs.
Table 33: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level
Jurisdiction
Extremely
Low* Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
City of Corcoran 61 61 116 118 359 715
Kings County Total 1,128 1,129 1,672 1,753 3,747 9,429
Percentage (Corcoran) 5.40% 5.4% 6.94% 6.73% 9.58% 7.58%
Table 2-1 in the Housing Element shows the demographic trends of different racial/ethnic categories within Kings County between 2000 and 2020. During this period, the population of City of Corcoran increased by
41.79%, however, with only a 7.57% increase in population from 2010 to 2020. City of Corcoran’s Hispanic population was 62.6% of the total population in the year 2010. By 2020, the Hispanic population increased to
69.3% of the population. In 2010, White and Black population was 19.4% and 14.6%, respectively. From 2010 to 2020, the White and Black population both fell approximately 4%.
The City of Corcoran has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income. The City of Corcoran faces some unique challenges compared to Kings County as a whole. The City of Corcoran has the lowest median household income at $42,997 compared to the other cities in Kings County. Female headed households are distributed across all census tracts in Corcoran at a rate of between 20%-40%. The city also has a significant need for dependent care and support systems for young children and youth, farm worker housing and housing appropriate for large families.
Census tract 14.01 and 16.01 have high POC segregation whereas the rest of Corcoran has low to medium segregation. The City of Corcoran will continue to work with Kings County Community Development Agency to develop and implement various Housing Element programs, especially areas with higher segregation. They will actively participate in the city’s efforts to prioritize and implement the following strategies:
1. Research, identify, and apply for funds available through the CDBG and HOME Programs, Mobile home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program (MPRROP), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Cap-and-Trade Program, and other funding sources that support affordable housing development and preservation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency, homeownership,
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-59
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT code enforcement, farmworker housing, etc.
2. Implement the following Housing Programs:
• Program 2.1 - Code Enforcement
• Program 2.2 - Paint Programs
• Program 2.3 - Housing Rehabilitation Program
• Program 2.4 - Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing • Program 2.5 - Adequate Sites
• Program 2.6 - Density Bonus Program
• Program 2.7 - Affordable Housing Development Assistance • Program 2.8 - First Time Homebuyer Program
• Program 2.9 - Purchase and Rehabilitation Homeownership Program • Program 2.10 - Section 8 Rental Vouchers
• Program 2.11 - Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing • Program 2.12 - Farmworker and Employee Housing
• Program 2.13 - Housing for Persons with Disabilities
• Program 2.14 - Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
• Program 2.15 - Weatherization and Energy-Efficient Home Improvements • Program 2.16 – Update and Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in Compliance with State Laws
• Program 2.17 – Adequate Infrastructure for Affordable Housing
3. Foster partnerships with non-profit affordable housing developers and experts within the community-based organization’s membership.
4. Engage the community by “getting the word out” on key community planning meetings, informing the public on available housing programs, and translating affordable housing-related materials and interpreting at community workshop in Spanish. The city will arrange for provisions of Spanish translation materials and provide interpreters at community workshops.
b) R/ECAPS and RCAAs
HUD has developed a census tract-based definition to assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), R/ECAP is defined as a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.
Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAPs if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-60
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, the City of Corcoran’s census tracts do not include R/ECAPs.
In addition to RECAPs utilized by HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric to tell the story of segregation more fully in the United States5. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016.) According to the HCD AFFH Dataset, there is no census tract in Corcoran that fit the criteria of income of $125,000 and a population that is 80 percent or more White, and therefore the city has no RCAAs.
The racial and ethnic composition of Corcoran and Kings County can be seen in Table 1A-3. It shows that in Corcoran, the majority of the population, 69.3%, identifies as Hispanic or Latino, which is significantly higher than Kings County's 54.90%. The non-Hispanic or Latino population in Corcoran accounts for
30.7%, which is notably lower than the 45.10% in Kings County. When breaking down the non-Hispanic or Latino population, Corcoran has a smaller percentage of White individuals (15.3%) compared to Kings County (31.60%), and a notably higher percentage of Black or African American individuals (11.7%) compared to Kings County (5.90%).
c) Access to Opportunity
City of Corcoran consists of census tracts with low resource, moderate resource, and high segregation and poverty areas, as seen in Figure 7. It does not have any high or highest resource areas. Therefore, the city must look to areas with high segregation and poverty to accommodate new development.
The city has distributed its RHNA sites throughout these areas. The new residential and mixed-use development in the identified areas will help to create more housing affordable to households at lower income levels, introduce new residents to the areas which can contribute to greater neighborhood stability, and expand opportunities for people to both live and work in Corcoran. Taken together, new residential and mixed-use development in the identified areas will help to diversify the land use pattern and improve the conditions of these census tracts by providing greater housing choice and a broader range of goods and services, bringing new residential development closer to transit and jobs, and otherwise supporting community revitalization.
According to the 2016- 2020 ACS, In Corcoran, among the 1,789 owner -occupied households, a lower percentage (47.1%) have 0.50 or fewer occupants per room compared to 60.7% in Kings County, indicating more spacious living conditions in Kings County. For Corcoran’s renter-occupied households (2,056 in total), only 27.6% have 0.50 or fewer occupants per room, which is lower than Kings County's 39.7%, suggesting more pronounced overcrowding among renters in Corcoran. The data also shows that in Corcoran, the percentage of renter -occupied households with higher occupants per room (1.01 to 1.50 and above) is significantly higher than in Kings County, indicating more severe overcrowding among renters in Corcoran.
The General Plan land use map and zoning ordinance identify those areas of the city that are to be developed with residential uses, and what standards apply to the different types of residential uses. Such standards are a necessary tool to promote and ensu re a healthy, compatible, and high- quality living environment. In compliance with State Housing Law, the city will permit ADUs and JADUs within the City. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a wide range of residential uses. Existing density bonus ordinance allows a developer to request a density bonus of up to 35 percent over the maximum density that is allowed by the zone in which the project is located if the developer agrees to reserve a certain percentage of the units as available to lower income households and/or senior citizens. The City will continue to work with developers to facilitate the use of these options.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-61
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT Figure 8 depicts Kings County’s AllTransit Performance score, including metrics representing average household transit access. Kings County’s overall score is 1.7, demonstrating “very low” connectivity. As is shown in Figure 9, many high qualities transit stops in terms of facilities, accessibility and frequency of services are completely in the city Corcoran.
With the potential introduction of greater housing choice close to transit access , a broader cross -section of households will have the opportunity to live in Corcoran. d) Disproportionate Housing Needs
Available land can support 2,290 housing units which exceed the RHNA allocation requirements.
The total number of units that could be accommodated in Corcoran during 2024-32 planning period are 285 lower income housing units and 2,005 moderate and above-moderate income housing units.
Kings County is one of the state’s major agricultural areas, ranking 8th among California counties in total agricultural production. According to the Kings County Agricultural Commissioner, 84% of the total land area in the County is devoted to farmland. Recent Census data in Table 1A-14 shows that 15% of employed Kings County civilian residents (16 years and over) worked in agriculture and related industries. Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Av enal, where 45% of its workers were in this industry. This was followed by Corcoran workers at 30%.
Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. According to an article in Rural Migration News , the average hourly wage for all California farmworkers in the years 2015- 2019 was approximately $12.
2. This is equivalent to approximately
$25,000/year for full -time work. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations. Corcoran’s larger household sizes and high overcrowding rates might be the result of a large number of farmworkers and a high poverty status. The City will focus on boosting programs and incentives for prioritizing farmworker housing.
Additionally, in terms of unique population groups, Corcoran has a very small share of homeless people, 5.4 %, in Kings County, or 17 individuals. It does not have concentration of people with disabilities or female headed households with children within the city. However, in comparison to Hanford and Lemoore, there is a concentration of female headed households in Corcoran, as well as Avenal. Therefore, targeted efforts to help assist the unique socio-economic needs of single mothers shall be prioritized.
e) Sites Inventory Findings
The RHNA determined a need for XX units in the City of Corcoran. The potential for new units is 2,290. The distribution of RHNA sites across the community will help to improve the opportunities and outcomes throughout the City. Furthermore, the RHNA sites will allow for development at densities needed to stimulate affordable housing development. All residential zones in the city allow accommodation of low -income housing units, provided that the structures containing the units meet all development standards specified under the zoning ordinance. The RM2.5, RM -3, RM-2, CD, and PO zoned areas further support development of
2 https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/blog/post/?id=2805
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-62
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT low-income housing units and improve financial feasibility.
Table 34: Potential Housings Units 2024-2032
General Plan
Zone
Acres
Lower
Moderate and
Above
Total
CORCORAN
VLDR/LDR RA/R-1-10/R1-6 428 1940 1940
MDR RM2.5, RM-3 22 177 65 242
HDR/Mixed RM-2, CD, PO 8.5 108 108
Sub-Total 458.5 285 2005 2290
Table 34 reflects that the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA are at all income levels. The RHNA sites are generally accommodated throughout Corcoran and are not concentrated in areas with high racial or ethnic populations, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, or senior households. For these reasons, the city finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA allocation do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate investment in areas where additional opportunities are desired, and where new residential and/or mixed -use development can help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed earlier in this chapter.
Below, Table 35 summarizes different characteristics of each of the census tracts in the City of Corcoran.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT Table 35: City of Corcoran Census Tract Characteristics
Characteristics Census Tract 13 Census Tract 15 Census Tract 14.02 Census Tract
14.01 Census Tract 9801 Census Tract 16.01
Figure 1A-1
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
High Segregation
& Poverty
Low Resource High Segregation
& Poverty
Moderate
Resource
N/A Moderate Resource
Figure 1A-2:
Local Median Income
< $35,000 $60,000 -
$84,097
$35,000 - $60,000 $35,000 -
$60,000
N/A $35,000 - $60,000
Figure 1A-3:
Poverty Status
30% - 40% 20% - 30% 30% - 40% 20% - 30% N/A 20% - 30%
Figure 1A-4:
Local Racial Demographics
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
Low-Medium
Segregation
High POC
Segregation
No Data
Applicable
High POC
Segregation
Figure 1A-5:
Local RCAAs
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Not a
RCAA
Figure 1A-6:
Single Parent Female Headed
Households with Children
20%-40%
20%-40%
20%-40%
20%-40%
N/A
20%-40%
Figure 1A-7: Population with
a Disability
10% - 20%
10% - 20%
10% - 20%
10% - 20%
N/A
< 10%
Figure 1A-10: Jobs Within 45-
Minute Transit Commute
0 0
0 – 2,500 0 2,501 – 5,000 0
Figure 1A-12:
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
>75% - 100% > 50% - 75% >75% - 100% > 50% - 75% N/A >75% - 100% Figure 1A-13:
Flood Hazard Zones
East area has a 1%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
No Identified
Risk
No Identified Risk No Identified
Risk
East area has a 1%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
East area has a 1%
Annual Chance
Flood Hazard
Figure 1A-14:
Overcrowded Units
< 5.19%
(Statewide
Average)
10% - 15%
5.19% - 10%
10% - 15%
N/A
10% - 15%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT Figure 1A-14:
Severely Overcrowded Units
2.5%-6.5% 2.5%-6.5% < 2.5%
< 2.5% N/A < 2.5%
Figure 1A-15:
Overpayment by Renters
40% - 60% 40% - 60% 40% - 60% 20%-40% N/A < 20%
Figure 1A-16: Percentage of
Homeowners Overpaying
< 20%
< 20%
20%-40%
40% - 60%
N/A
< 20%
Figure 1A-17: Estimated
Displacement Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
At Risk of
Displacement
1 Income Group
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Low Data Quality Lower
Displacement Risk
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Figure 19: City of Corcoran and Surrounding Area Vacant Sites 6,000 sq ft or Greater City of Corcoran and Surrounding Area Zoning
vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater
CJ
_,_. ___ .,_ ..... ,..,. ____ _ ----.. -....... ~~· ... --...
LEGEND
L Flood Zones
D Vacant Land 6,000 sq ft+
D eity Area
L Parcels
Corcof'MI Zoning """""~
AQrku~ure
-~ ~ =rcial
"""' • :c::1 -~ial -·-•:~al
Residttltial·
10000 Sq.ft.
Hi!jlhWay
-·-
Commeraal
•--Ugh! 6000 Sq.l't.
Industri al . <allother
Multi-fam ily values>
Residential · County Zoning
2000 Sq.ft ._,
. Multl-famlly
Resldenlla1- AUO
2500 Sq.fl . IH Multl-famny
. Re$identia1• IL
3000 Sq.fl Pf
r-- Neighbortiood
R-1-6 - Commerdal
ProfessiOMI RRA
= Offl<,
RRf ..,.., .... ,
--
Map prepared by:
Maddison Faria
April 11, 2024
Kings County Community
Development Agency
1100 W Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230
(559)852-2647
o ____ o._s __ = ~1Miles
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-66
Figure 20: City of Corcoran and Surrounding Area Vacant Land Inventory
Census Tract 13
Census tract 13 consists of several vacant sites, especially with larger square footage. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this area is classified as High Segregation & Poverty with a local median income of less than $35,000. More than 40% of the population earns income is below the poverty level. It is identified as a Low-Medium Segregation are with no racial concentration areas of affluence. There is identified risk in some of the western and southwest portions are in the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard area and high environmental risk, between 75% and 100% according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 metric. In this area there is between 40% and 60% of renter households for whom gross rent is 30% or more of household income; there is less than 20% owner households with mortgages for whom gross rent is 30% or more of household income. This area is identified as At Risk of Displacement.
Moderate and above moderate affordable units should be encouraged in this area to promote integration and access to diverse income groups. The City must also consider measures to mitigate high environmental hazard risk, flood hazard risk, and displacement risk.
Census Tract 15
This tract has a few vacant sites. It is identified as Moderate Resource with a local median income between $60,0000 City of Corcoran and Surroun~ing Area
Vacant Land Invento r/v
~ j
·,~ ~
~ -------\r j ~ --+
. '~
14,Q2
□
9801
LEGEND
Vacant Land
I I Flood Zone
LJ City Boundaries
Census Blocks
TULAR COUN TY
t-lap rep.,redby:
Made ison Faria
Apri 11, 2024
'----------7'-----------L---+-~ K,::in~~;;,•,;iCodu :!!n~o:;:::ty 1400 W Lacey SNd, Harlofd, CA 932):)
(SS9)8S2-2647
;.... __ ...;;0·;;.5 ___ .,;1Miles
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-67
and $84,097. Between 10%-20% of the population is below the poverty level and is identified as consisting of Low- Medium Segregation with no racial concentration areas of affluence. It has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile score between 50% and 75%. Census tract 15 has the most overcrowded and severely overcrowded units. Between 40% and 60% of the renter households pay a gross rent that is 30% or more of household income while less than 20% of owner households with mortgages pay gross rent is 30% or more of household income. This area is identified as at Risk of Displacement.
Extremely low, very low, and low-income units should be targeted here to address Corcoran’s highest overcrowding rates. The other advantage of targeted units here is that this area is identified as Moderate resource.
Census Tract 14.02
This census tract has a few vacant sites. It is identified as High Segregation & Poverty with a local median income between $35,000 and $60,000. More than 40% of population earns income below the poverty level and is identified as a Low-Medium Segregation area. It contains jobs within 45-minute transit commute. The environmental risk here is high according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile score which is between 75% and 100%. Between 40% to 60% of the renter households pay gross rent that is 30% or more household income while between 20% and 40% of owner households have mortgages with gross rent that is over 30% of household income. Census tract 14.02 is identified as at risk of 1 Income Group Displacement.
The addition of moderate and above moderate affordable units in Census Tract 14.02 will assist in integration and access to economic opportunity. The addition of extremely, very low, low income affordable units is advantageous to households that can utilize transit to commute to job opportunities within 45 minutes. The City must take into account the high score regarding environmental hazards and the displacement risk.
Census Tract 14.01
There are a few vacant sties in this census tract. Census tract 1401 is identified as a Moderate Resource with a local median income between $35,000 and $60,000. Between 10%-20% of the population is below the poverty level and is identified as High POC Segregation. The environmental risk according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is between 50% and 75%. Between 20% and 40% of rental households overpay for housing while between 40% and 60% of owner households with mortgages overpay. This area is identified as having Lower Displacement Risk.
The provision of a range of extremely-low income and low-income affordable units in this area allows lower income households access to a Moderate Resource area while moderate and above moderate households have a lower chance of causing displacement. This area also has less environmental risk compared to some other census tracts.
Census Tract 9801
This area has insufficient data for various types of characteristics; The western portion is in the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard area; Contains three CA transit stops; Contains jobs within 45-minute transit commute. There is not much data available for this area. However, it is the only census tract that provides access to CA transit; additionally, it
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-68
provides access to jobs with 45-minute transit commute. Lower income households especially can benefit from transit access of economic opportunities.
Census Tract 16.01
There are several vacant sites including multiple large vacant sites. This area is identified as Moderate Resource area with a local median income between $35,000 and $60,000. Between 10%-20% of the population is below the poverty level and identified as a High POC Segregation area. The environmental risk, according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0, is between 75% and 100% and only the western portion is in the 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard area. Less than 20% of renter households pay gross rent that is 30% or more of household income while less than 20% of owner households with mortgages pay over 30% of household income. It is also identified as a Lower Displacement Risk area.
Summary
There are two census tracts that should prioritize new, affordable housing development. Many of the vacant sites including ones with large square footage footprints are in Census tract 13. According to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas map, this area is classified as High Segregation & Poverty with a local median income of less than $35,000.
Moderate and above moderate affordable units should be encouraged in this area to promote integration and access to diverse income groups. The City must also consider measures to mitigate high environmental hazard risk, flood hazard risk, and displacement risk. Census tract 1401 is identified as a Moderate Resource with a local median income between $35,000 and $60,000. Between 10%-20% of the population is below the poverty level and is identified as High POC Segregation. The provision of a range of extremely-low income and low income affordable units in this area allows lower income households access to a Moderate Resource area while moderate and above moderate households have a lower chance of causing displacement. This area also has less environmental risk compared to some other census tracts.
Kings County is one of the state’s major agricultural areas, Of the four cities, the highest percentage of civilian workers in agricultural related jobs was Avenal, where 45% of its workers are in this industry, followed by Corcoran workers at 30%. Agricultural workers, and especially farmworkers, have special housing needs due to their relatively low wages. As a result, farmworkers often overpay for housing (in relation to their income) and/or live in overcrowded and substandard living situations. Corcoran’s larger household sizes and high overcrowding rates might be the result of a large number of farmworkers and a high poverty status. The City will focus on boosting programs and incentives for prioritizing farmworker housing.
Additionally, in terms of unique population groups, Corcoran has a very small share of homeless people, 5.4 %, in Kings County, or 17 individuals. It does not have concentration of people with disabilities or female headed households with children within the city. However, in comparison to Hanford and Lemoore, there is a concentration of female headed households in Corcoran, as well as Avenal. Therefore, targeted efforts to help assist the unique socio-economic needs of single mothers shall be prioritized.
Further, an emphasis on increasing access in primarily single-family neighborhoods through ADUs, SB9 units, and alternative housing types as discussed in the Housing Plan will increase opportunities in areas where single family neighborhoods coincide with higher-than-average income levels, areas of opportunity, and lower diversity.
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-69
Contributing Factors
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory.
The County supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities.
Based on the issues identified in this Fair Housing Analysis, the following are the top 5 issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:
1. Maintaining and preserving the existing affordable housing stock;
2. Assisting in the provision of housing;
3. Removing governmental constraints, as necessary;
4. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; and
5. Promoting equal housing opportunity.
After considering these issues and FHEA recommendations, the County has identified in Table 36 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in unincorporated Kings County and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the Table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.
Table 36: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues
AFH Identified Fair Housing
Issue
Contributing Factors
Priority
Meaningful Actions
Limitations in local
Consolidated Planning
Processes, ongoing CDBG and
HOME funding allocations,
Housing Elements Processes,
and other city planning
documents.
Existing low-density
residential
development under
general plan and
zoning code
Gap between low
density and medium
density and high-
density classification
High Program 2.6 Density Bonus
Program
Program 2.7 Affordable
Housing Development
Assistance: Through direct
financial assistance such as
CDBG and HOME, priority
entitlement processing,
regulatory incentives such as
density bonus and modified
development standards,
Assist in the provision of
housing by removing
government constraints and
promoting equal housing
opportunity
Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications
Permission of pre-
approved design, and
development standards
High Program 2.7 Affordable
Housing Development
Assistance
Programs 2.10 Section 8
Rental Vouchers
Program 2.11 Emergency
Shelters and
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-70
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 2.12 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
Program 2.13 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
Funding for marginalized or
distressed communities, such as
Transit Oriented Development
Funds, Strategic Growth
Council grants, HCD's
Housing-Related Parks
Program, Safe Routes to
School, and Brownfield
funding.
Ensuring funding is
available for
marginalized and
distressed community
High Research, identify, and
apply for funds available
through the CDBG and
HOME Programs, Mobile
home Park Rehabilitation
and Resident Ownership
Program (MPRROP),
United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Cap-
and-Trade Program, and
other funding sources that
support affordable housing
development and
preservation, infrastructure
investment, energy
efficiency, homeownership,
code enforcement,
farmworker housing, etc.
Program 2.8 First-Time
Homebuyer Program
Program 2.9 Purchase and
Rehabilitation
Homeownership Program
Program 2.10 Section 8
Rental Vouchers
Program 2.15
Weatherization and Energy-
Efficient Home
Improvements
Provide guidance for site
selection of affordable housing
developments.
Housing Element
identifies adequate sites
to accommodate the
City’s share of the
Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 715 units
High Program 2.5 Adequate Sites:
Adequate sites are those with
sufficient development and
density standards, water and
sewer services, and adequate
infrastructure.
SECTION 1A-5: REVIEW OF PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-71
Develop a program to educate
and encourage landlords to
accept Housing Choice
Vouchers.
Lack of readily available
information regarding fair
housing resources and
assistance to persons in
filing a complaint
Lack of education of
public and housing
providers regarding rights
and responsibilities under
the AFH and FEHA
High Program 2.14 Promote Equal
Housing Opportunities
Develop and implement a
proactive code enforcement
program that holds property
owners accountable and
proactively plans for resident
relocation when necessary.
Code enforcement High Program 2.1 Code
Enforcement, 2.3 Housing
Rehabilitation Program,
Disproportionate Housing
Needs, including Overpayment
and Substandard Housing
Ongoing need for
affordable housing
Need for assistance with
monthly housing costs
Lack of local information
regarding available
housing rehabilitation,
emergency repair, and
weatherization programs
Need for targeted
housing revitalization
strategies
Medium Program 2.2 Paint Programs
Program 2.4 Preservation of
At-Risk Affordable Housing
Program 2.10 Section 8
Rental Assistance
Program 2.11 Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
Program 2.12 Farmworker
and Employee Housing
Program 2.13 Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
Use design tools to seamlessly
integrate affordable housing
development into larger mixed-
income developments.
Limitations in zoning
code and density
classifications ·
Approval process
Medium Program 2.7 Affordable
Housing Development
Assistance
Displacement Risk Land use and zoning laws
Displacement of residents
due to economic
pressures
Medium
Program 2.4 Preservation of
At-Risk Affordable Housing
Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)
• • • • •
1A-ii
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Draft - July 2024
Prepared By:
Realty Planners Group
Fallbrook, California
Kings County Lemoore Corcoran Hanford Avenal Kings (Unincorporated)
• • • • •
SECTION 1A: TABLE OF CONTENTS
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-ii
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COUNTY OF KINGS
LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ................................................................................. 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 Outreach ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues ......................................................................................... 10 Sites Analysis............................................................................................................................. 69 Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................. 84
TABLES
Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020 .................................................. 11 Table 2: Fair Housing Compliance City of Hanford ............................................................................ 9 Table 3: Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................ 12 Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time (Simplified) .......................................... 12 Table 5: Household Income Distribution by Tenure ......................................................................... 14 Table 6: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin ....................................................... 9 Table 7: Total Households in Poverty .............................................................................................. 11 Table 8: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time .................................................................... 11 Table 9: Extremely Low Income Households Overpaying by Tenure ............................................... 22 Table 10: Household Characteristics ............................................................................................... 23 Table 11: Household type by tenure ................................................................................................ 23 Table 12: Households by Size ......................................................................................................... 22 Table 13: Tenure by Household Size .............................................................................................. 22 Table 14: Female-Headed Households ........................................................................................... 23 Table 15: Population by Age Groups (Total) .................................................................................... 24 Table 16: Senior Households by Tenure Over Time ........................................................................ 24 Table 17: Household type by tenure ................................................................................................ 28 Table 18: Leading Agricultural Crops, Kings County ....................................................................... 44 Table 19: Agricultural Employment by Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 45 Table 20: Hired Farm Labor-Workers, Kings County ....................................................................... 46 Table 21: Travel Time to Work ........................................................................................................ 47 Table 22: Work Locations of City/County Resident Workers............................................................ 47 Table 23: Household Tenure and Vacancy Rates ........................................................................... 52 Table 23: Total Housing Units Over Time ........................................................................................ 54 Table 25: Total Housing Units by Type Over Time .......................................................................... 54 Table 26: Building Permits by Number of Structures Authorized ..................................................... 55 Table 27: Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built .................................................................... 56 Table 28: Median Monthly Housing Costs Over Time ...................................................................... 56 Table 29: Median Monthly Housing Costs by Tenure as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months ............................................................................................................................... 57 Table 30: Overcrowding by Tenure .................................................................................................. 58 Table 31: Household Overpayment by Tenure ................................................................................ 59 Table 32: Homeless Persons .......................................................................................................... 64 Table 33: Shelter Facilities in Kings County .................................................................................... 65 Table 34: Kings RHNA 2024-2032 by Income Level ........................................................................ 70
1A-iv
Table 35: Potential Housing Units 2024-2032 ................................................................................. 75 Table 36: Characteristics by City of Hanford Census Tracts ............................................................ 76 Table 37: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues .................................................................... 85
FIGURES
Figure 1: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ........................................................... 10 Figure 2: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT ..................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Senior Households by Income .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 4: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children.................................................. 25 Figure 5: Population with a Disability ................................................................................................ 30 Figure 6: Local Racial Demographics ............................................................................................... 32 Figure 7: Local RCAAs .................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 8: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023 ..................................................... 17 Figure 9: Kings County All Transit Performance Score ..................................................................... 40 Figure 10: Kings County High quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 mile) ................................. 41 Figure 11: Employment by Industry of Kings County Workforce ...................................................... 42 Figure 12: High Quality transit stops and transit area (1/2 Mile) & Jobs within 45-minute transit commute. ........................................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 13: School districts in Kings County ..................................................................................... 48 Figure 14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 & high-quality transit stops (Transit area ½ mile) ........................... 50 Figure 15: Flood Hazard Zones ....................................................................................................... 51 Figure 16: Median Gross Rent and Percent Change Over Time (1980-2020) ................................. 57 Figure 17: Total and Percent Change Cost-Burdened Owner Households Over Time (1980-2020) 60 Figure 18: Overcrowding in Kings County ....................................................................................... 61 Figure 19: Overpayment by renters (ACS, 2017-2021) – Tract Level .............................................. 62 Figure 20: Percentage of Homeowners Overpaying ......................................................................... 63 Figure 21: Visalia, Kings, Tulare Counties CoC - Homelessness by Type Over Time (2005-2020) . 66 Figure 22: Estimated displacement risk – Overall displacement by tract .......................................... 68 Figure 23: City of Hanford Vacant Sites 6,000 Square Feet or Greater ........................................... 79 Figure 24: City of Hanford and Unincorporated Area Vacant Land Inventory ................................... 79 Figure 25: Figure 24 with Census Tracts & Block Groups ............................................................... 80
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-5 APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Introduction
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”1
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Although this is the Housing Element for the County of Kings, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10) requires all local jurisdictions to address patterns locally and regionally to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. This section is organized by fair housing topics Strategies to address the identified issues are included throughout the section. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, the County of Kings identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues.
The AFFH analysis must contain the following:
1. Outreach
2. Assessment of Fair Housing
a. Key Data and Background Information
b. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f. Disproportional Housings Needs
g. Displacement Risk
3. Sites Inventory
4. Identification
1 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), April 27, 2021, preface page, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Outreach
a) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State law requires local governments to make a diligent effort to achieve public participation in three formal community meetings to initiate the Housing Element. To that end, each jurisdiction has provided opportunities for residents, interested parties, and local officials to participate in the update process and offer recommendations regarding housing needs and strategies to address those needs.
The public participation process for this Housing Element involved four major stages:
1. Public workshops and meetings in each of the four cities and the unincorporated County during the preparation of the Draft Housing Element.
2. Publication of the Draft Housing Element and subsequent review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
3. Revisions to the Housing Element to address comments from HCD and publication of a revised Draft Housing Element.
4. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council of each city and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Kings County prior to adoption of the final Housing Element.
b) CITY OF HANFORD WEBSITE
City of Hanford website (https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/166/Community-Development) serves as the main conduit of information for individuals who can access material online. The website is regularly updated to reflect ongoing community input opportunities, advertise draft housing element, and answer commonly asked questions. The website includes the following information:
• Upcoming meeting information
• Housing Element Workshops (Spanish and English)
• Notices of Public Hearing
• Links to Housing Element and other planning documents
c) GENERAL MULTI-LINGUAL ADVERTISEMENTS
The City utilized a variety of methods to advertise the project, engage the community, and solicit input on the Housing Element (including fair housing analysis). These efforts are summarized herein to demonstrate the City’s meaningful commitment to community collaboration. The city has prepared workshop flyers (in English and Spanish), and sent emails to stakeholders requesting involvement and providing flyers and outreach information in English and Spanish
d) COMMUNITY MEETING
The City of Hanford held a join study session with City Council and Planning Commission on November 6,
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-10
2023 at 4:00 pm. Several members of the community were present in the audience. However, no questions or concerns were expressed by the audience. The City Council and the Planning Commission discussed topics regarding housing affordability, available assistance to the public such as first-time home buyer programs, housing income categories, and income levels to qualify for affordable housing assistance.
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
This section provides an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in the City of Hanford. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in Hanford, and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies, and programs to affirmatively further fair housing. The following issues are addressed:
a) Key Data and Background Information
b) Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
c) Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
d) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty e) Disparities in Access to Opportunity
f) Disproportionate Housing Needs
g) Displacement Risk
A) KEY DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kings County is located within the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, with Fresno County to the north and west, Tulare County to the east, and Kern County to the south. Created in 1893, Kings County was carved from the western portion of Tulare County and later added another 100 square miles. The Kings River, from which the County derives its name, runs along the northern edges and flows south towards the center of the County. Historically, this river flowed farther south to what was once Tulare Lake K ings County is comprised of four cities (Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore), four unincorporated community service areas (Armona, Home Garden, Kettleman City, and Stratford), and a few other smaller community pockets. Agriculture remains the predominant landscape of Kings County, with approximately 84% of its land area used for agriculture. The County’s transportation network has played a key role in its economic development.
Hanford was incorporated in 1881 and is the county seat for Kings County, California. Hanford is located in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley and lies equidistant from Los Angeles and San Francisco. The city’s strong sense of community pride, beautifully landscaped streetscapes, and preserved historic buildings are just a few reasons why Hanford is an attractive place to live and is experiencing a strong rate of growth.
Furthermore, Hanford is a pro‐business community that promotes responsive and properly planned growth.
Table 1 provides data on the growth of the household population in Hanford and Kings County over a thirty-
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
year period. In Hanford, the household population saw a substantial increase, starting from 29,927 in 1990 and rising to 56,945 by 2020. This growth represents an addition of 27,018 persons, translating to a significant 90.3% increase in population over these three decades. Comparatively, Kings County also experienced population growth, but at a much slower rate, 53.1% . This data highlights that Hanford's population growth significantly outpaced that of the overall county, marking it as a key area of demographic change within Kings County.
Table 1: Kings County Household Population Growth, 1990-2020
Jurisdiction
Household Population Change 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Persons %
Hanford 29,927 40,839 53,068 56,945 27,018 90.3%
County Totals 89,469 109,332 131,402 136,964 47,495 53.10%
Note: All numbers exclude persons in group quarters (State prisons and Naval Air station Lemoore) ; Sources: Census 1990, 2000, 2010; Cal.DOF, , E5 and E8 Population and Housing Estimates.
The City of Hanford evaluated the 5th Cycle Housing Program Evaluation for 2014 to 2024. The following are some of its accomplishments:
• Program 3.2. Housing Rehabilitation Program: Provided 135 grants/loans valued at $1,339,205.
• Program 3.3 Preservation of At -Risk Affordable Housing: Ongoing monitoring of the 766 affordable units. Amberwood I apartments and Cedarbrook apartments expire in 2030; Amberwood II apartments, Kings View Hanford, and View Road Apartments expire in 2031; and Hanford Senior Villas expire in 2032.
• Program 3.4 Adequate Sites: The City achieved 1,709 units out of the RHNA allocation of 4,832 units.
• Program 3.7 First Time Homebuyer Programs and HOME Swe et Home Program: City supported non-profit housing organizations in working with HCD to remove HOME program impediments and/or allow for a streamlined process of requesting an exception pursuant to 24 CFR 92.356(d) for projects/programs that will serve to further the purposes of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
• Program 3.9 Affordable Housing Assistance : The City assisted with the conversion of Stardust Motel to 22 single units and a 62-unit project. • Program 3.12 Housing for Person with Disabilities: Code amended to clarify the definition of “family”.
The City supports the recommendations of the 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA) that was prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing. The FHEA analyzes patterns in racial and economic segregation, discusses how segregation impacts individuals’ and families’ ability to access housing opportunity, and proposes strategies and recommendations to create more equitable and integrated communities. Some of the recommendations include:
Use the data and findings in the FHEA document to guide local Consolidated Planning Processes, ongoing CDBG and HOME funding allocations, Housing Elements Processes, and other city planning documents:
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-12
1) Actively seek funding for marginalized or distressed communities, such as Transit Oriented Development Funds, Strategic Growth Council grants, HCD's Housing- Related Parks Program, Safe Routes to School, and Brownfield funding. 2) Develop and implement a proactive code enforcement program that holds property owners accountable and proactively plans for resident relocation when necessary. 3) Consider new technologies and/or products such as modular housing construction to reduce costs and increase access to housing.
4) Prioritize basic infrastructure improvements like water, sewer, and street lights. 5) Support acquisition and rehabilitation programs to combat vacant or blighted properties. 6) Use the FHEA data and the opportunity indices to help guide site selection of affordable housing developments.
7) Use design tools to seamlessly integrate affordable housing development into larger mixed- income developments.
8) Develop a program to educate and encourage landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers.
The availability of decent and affordable housing to meet the needs of current and future residents is an important housing goal. To accomplish this goal, a comprehensive assessment of housing needs provides the basis for developing responsive policies and programs.
B) FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT OUTREACH CAPACITY
Equal access to housing is fundamental to each person being able to meet essential needs and to pursuing personal, educational, employment, or other goals. In recognition of equal housing access as a fundamental right, the governments of the United States and the State of California have both established fair housing as a right protected by law. Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.
The California fair housing laws are built upon the federal laws and add marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and “any arbitrary factor” as protected categories under the laws. Many factors in the public and private domains impede equal access to housing or fair housing choice. Impediments to fair housing choice are:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or • Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor. To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove or mitigate impediments to fair housing choice. The City of Hanford is dedicated to providing fair housing opportunities to all residents and to ensure that all applicable laws are complied with throughout the city
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
The City of Hanford provides resources and programs to address fair housing concerns. Below is a table that discusses laws and compliance regarding fair housing. Further discussion of programs is found in the Kings County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element and in the Contributing Factors section of this AFFH report.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Table 2: Fair Housing Compliance City of Hanford
Law Description Compliance
California Fair
Employment and
Housing Act
(FEHA)
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
applies to public and private employers, labor
organizations and employment agencies and
prohibits discrimination in housing and
employment on the basis of protected
characteristics.
The FEHA prohibits those engaged in the
housing business – landlords, real estate
agents, home sellers, builders, mortgage
lenders, among others – from discriminating
against tenants or homeowners based on
protected characteristics.
It is also illegal for cities, counties, or other local government agencies to make zoning or land-use
decisions, or have policies, that discriminate
against individuals based on those traits.
The city complies with employment
requirements through strict enforcement
of hiring practices and regular training of
hiring managers and human resources
staff.
All development projects with City
funding are required to comply with
FEHA.
Under the Community Development
Block Grant Program, the City of
Hanford’s Community Development
Department operates a Fair Housing
Program under Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 aimed at combating
illegal discrimination in housing.
The City of Hanford is working to identify
community development priorities, fair and
affordable housing needs, and factors that
shape equal access to housing for
incorporation into the City’s 5-Year
Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, &
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice.
Government Code
Section 65008
Covers actions of a city, county, city and county,
or other local government agency, and makes
those actions null and void if the action denies an
individual or group of individuals the enjoyment
of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other
land use in the state because of membership in a
protected class, the method of financing, and/or the
intended occupancy.
For example, a violation under Government Code
section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied
more scrutiny to reviewing and approving an
affordable development as compared to market-rate
developments, or multifamily housing as
compared to single family homes.
Compliance is achieved by uniform
application of the City’s codes,
regulations, policies and practices,
including development standards, design
guidelines, application submittal
requirements, fees and approval findings.
Hanford supports the recommendations of the
San
Joaquin Valley Fair Housing and Equity
Assessment and cooperates with the State in
the development of the Assessment of Fair
Housing
Government Code
Section 8899.50
Requires all public agencies to administer programs
and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner to affirmatively further
fair housing and avoid any action that is
materially inconsistent with its obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Compliance is achieved through
consultations with community stakeholders
and support agencies as part of program
evaluation and funding decisions.
Government Code
Section 11135 et
seq.
Requires full and equal access to all programs
and activities operated, administered, or funded
with financial assistance from the state, regardless
of one’s membership or perceived membership in a
protected class.
Compliance is achieved through
promotion/availability of activities and
programs to all persons of all backgrounds
to participate equally in community
programs and activities.
Housing
Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, §
Provides that a local agency shall not disapprove
a housing development project, for very low,
low-, or moderate-income households, or an
Compliance is achieved through the
development review process consistent
with the Housing Accountability Act.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-10
65589.5.) emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development
project infeasible for development for the use of
very low, low-, or moderate-income households,
or an emergency shelter, including through the use
of design review standards, unless it makes certain
written findings, based upon a preponderance of
the evidence in the record.
Additionally, the city continually reviews
its development standards and to ensure they
facilitate an objective and equitable review
of applicable projects.
XX
Excessive
Subdivision
Standards (Gov.
Code, § 65913.2.)
Provides that, in exercising its authority to
regulate subdivisions a city, county, or city and
county shall:
a) Refrain from imposing criteria for
design, as defined in Section 66418, or
improvements, as defined in Section
66419, for the purpose of rendering
infeasible the development of housing
for any and all economic segments of
the community. However, nothing in
this section shall be construed to
enlarge or diminish the authority of a
city, county, or city and county under
other provisions of law to permit a
developer to construct such housing.
b) Consider the effect of ordinances
adopted and actions taken by it with
respect to the housing needs of the
region in which the local jurisdiction is
situated.
c) Refrain from imposing standards and
criteria for public improvements
including, but not limited to, streets,
sewers, fire
stations, schools, or parks,
which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or
city and county at that time to its
publicly financed improvements
located in similarly zoned districts
within that city, county, or city and
county.
Compliance is achieved through the
implementation of a fair and equitable
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the Excessive
Subdivision Standards Act.
Housing Element
Law (Gov. Code, §
65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).)
Section 65583 stipulates that the housing element
shall consist of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. The housing
element shall identify adequate sites for
housing, including rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing
and projected needs of all economic segments of
the community.
Subdivision (c)(5) provides that, in order to make
Compliance is achieved through
preparation and adoption of a Housing
Element found to be in substantial
compliance with State Housing Element law
by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, the
program shall promote and affirmatively further
fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for
all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
familial status, or disability, and other
characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3
of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and
federal fair housing and planning law.
C. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION PATTERNS AND TRENDS
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of pers ons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. Conversely, integration refers to a condition in which there is a not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. The following analysis will analyze levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, and income to identify the groups in Arvin that experience the highest levels of segregation. Minorities are often concentrated in impoverished areas and lack access to resources such as jobs, educational opportunities, life services and face other disadvantages.
Racial Demographics
The City of Hanford is a diverse about as diverse as Kings County. Nearly half of the population, 44%, identifies as Hispanic or Latino, 38.5% identify as White. This is followed by a larger share of people that identify as Asian at 7.4% compared to Kings County’s 3.6%. Hanford has similar share of Black or African Americans, accounting for 5.7%, to Kings County’s share of 5.9%. Hanford has a small percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and other races.
From the span of 2000 to 2020, the Hispanic or Latino of Any Race population count almost doubled, with a particularly large increase between 2000 and 2010. In a similar time frame, the White Alone Non-Hispanic population has not decreased dramatically in count, in 20 years the population went down from 20,794 to 19,608.
Notably, in the City of Hanford, there are 1,586 identified households in poverty and close to 70% of those households identify as Hispanic or Latino of Any Race. The Black or African American Alone Non -Hispanic population has increased by a few hundred. The American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic and
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-12
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic increased by a few dozen. Although the share of Asian Alone Non-Hispanic group is not large, the population almost doubled.
Table 3: Race and Ethnicity
Racial /Ethnic Group Hanford Kings County
Not Hispanic
or Latino 50.6% 45.10%
White 38.5% 31.60%
Black or
African American 5.7% 5.90%
American Indian/
Alaska Native 0.2% 0.80%
Asian 7.4% 3.60%
Native Hawaiian
/Pacific Islander 0.2% 0.10%
Other races or
2+ races 4.1% 3.20%
Hispanic or Latino
(any race) 44.0% 54.90%
Total 100% 100%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B03002
Table 4: Population by Race by Hispanic Origin Over Time (Simplified) 2000 2010 2020
Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 16,116 25,419 30,763
White Alone Non-Hispanic 20,794 22,205 19,608
Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic 1,989 2,367 2,423 American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic 305 331 365 Asian Alone Non-Hispanic 1,164 2,205 2,307
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-
Hispanic 59 43 87
Some Other Race Non-Hispanic 55 160 305
Two or More Races Non-Hispanic 1,204 1,237 2,132
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer Table for Census 2020.
Gini Index
The Gini index is a measure of the extent to which the distribution of income among families/households within a community deviate from a perfect equal distribution. The scale is from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing the highest possible level of inequality. Gini coefficient for California is
0.49. City of Hanford and Kings County has a Gini index is 0.41. All three jurisdiction have a similar amount of inequality in terms of distribution of income among households, with the City of Hanford and Kings County performing marginally better.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Income Distribution
The City of Hanford consists of 13 census tracts and is the most populous city and county seat of Kings County. Highway 198 runs through the middle of the City of Hanford.
Along with housing prices and rents, household income is the most important factor affecting housing opportunities within Kings County. Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. On the other hand, however, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing. According to the ACS 2016-2020 Table S1901 the median household income for the entire County was reported as $61,556.
The City of Hanford ’s median household income is above the county average at $65,974 according to the Census ACS 2016- 2020 Table S1901. As shown in Figure 1A-2, the City of Hanford has varied median incomes with northwestern tracts consisting of incomes above $120,000 and the eastern, western and southern region consisting of incomes between $60,000 - $84,097 and central regions having incomes ranging from $35,000 - $60,000 and a tract with income below $35,000.
As Hanford consists of a larger proportion of the workforce which holds “white-collar” jobs when compared to other counties such as Avenal and Corcoran with lower median incomes as larger proportion of the demographics are involved in more "blue collar jobs". Although median household income is a common benchmark for comparison, the distribution of household income also provides a useful measure of housing needs in a community. In housing analysis, households are typically grouped into categories, expressed relative to the Area Median Income (AMI) and adjusted for family size. Using State of California income thresholds, the income groups analyzed were as follows:
• Extremely low income: Up to 30% of AMI
• Very low income: 31-50% of AMI
• Low income: 51-80% of AMI
• Moderate income: 81-120% of AMI
• Upper income: Above 120% of AMI
Table 5 estimates the percentage of households by tenure within each income category in each jurisdiction as reported in HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the Census ACS 2014- 2018. Countywide, almost one-quarter (24%) of owner households were in the lower-income category (80% or less than the AMI --extremely-low, very-low, and low incomes), while over one-half (55%) of renter households were in the lower-income category.
In the C ity of Hanford, approximately three-fourths of owners belonged to the moderate- and upper-income category whereas close to half the renters belong to the moderate- and upper-income category. There is a huge difference in tenure for extremely low-income households. Only 4.1% of extremely low-income households own while 19.1% of them rent. There are also about half as many very low incomes and low-income households that own in comparison to those that rent. Clearly there is more housing choice for low er-income households that rent than own.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-14
Table 5: Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Income Category Hanford Kings County
Owners
<= 30% 4.1 % 5.50%
>30% to <=50% 6.8% 7.30%
>50% to <=80% 11.0% 11.0%
>80% to <=100% 7.80% 8.60%
>100% 70.4% 67.5%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Renters
<= 30% 19.1% 17.70%
>30% to <=50% 12.1% 14.60%
>50% to <=80% 21.0% 22.80%
>80% to <=100% 9.3% 11.40%
>100% 38.5% 33.50%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Source: HUD CHAS data based on Census ACS 2014-2018
In the City of Hanford, much like Kings County and California, there are income disparities when comparing race and ethnicity. Before examining the physical concentration of resources, integration, and segregation in Hanford, this discussion will cover local median household income, poverty status, extremely low-income households.
Asian Alone Non-Hispanic and Two or More Races Non-Hispanic groups had the highest median household incomes, in the $80,000 range. White Alone Non-Hispanic earned approximately $10,000 less than Asians Alone Non-Hispanic. Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic earned approximately $20,000 than the highest median household income earners. Hispanic or Latino of Any Race earned roughly $30,000 less than Asian Alone Non-Hispanic and Two or More Races Non-Hispanic groups. American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic earners made approximately half of their Kings County counterparts and roughly a third of their California counterparts.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Table 6: Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin
City of
Hanford Kings County California
Asian Alone Non-Hispanic $82,447 $80,530 $101,380
White Alone Non-Hispanic $74,934 $74,918 $90,496
Black Or African American Alone Non-Hispanic $62,990 $56,076 $54,976 Hispanic Or Latino of Any Race $52,925 $49,373 $62,330
American Indian And Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic $21,951 $44,842 $60,182 Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic $98,864 $81,682 Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic $45,461 $47,592 $59,287 Two Or More Races Non-Hispanic $86,160 $72,188 $76,733 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-10
Figure 1: Local Median Income (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. ACS 5yr estimates (2017-2021). Updated: March 2023. 2 Grangev ill e
5 D
16.01 L"'Y.;rllll
~1i,Ji&1 H1 .. u ,;•,h.HJ l11w ··ll,I in v-,;i!il 12. ·-.u1U11> (i11fLiliur r <A.lju;lW lu 2021) r---7 , 135,000
L__J $35,000 - $(;0,000
- too.ooo - t.s1.~J7
- t.~.o,17 - ~ 170,000
- > !120,000
L__J CityBoundal'le'5
c:::::::::, I ffl!'4..~ lrnrt llnundaly
Ci!M,; in Kinyi;: CU1..'11l11
c::::::::I Avc...::I
C:::::::::,cormr.:m
C:::::::::, llr.nford
C:::::::::, l ru-r)(l('lfl"!
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Poverty Status
In 2021, Kings County, California, experienced varying levels of poverty across different regions. The overall poverty rate for Kings County stood at 16.4%, marking a 2.19% increase from the previous year. According to Table 7, 18.8% of households in Kings County are in poverty, 6.6% higher than California.
The City of Hanford’s poverty rate is 10.9%. As seen in Figure 1, the City of Hanford census tracts in the north and western portions generally displayed poverty rates below 10%. However, the central areas have the highest levels of poverty at 30%-40% and the eastern regions show a decrease at around 20- 30%. These statistics underscore the diverse economic landscape of Hanford, where certain areas exhibit significantly higher poverty rates, highlighting the need for targeted socioeconomic interventions.
Notably, the household poverty rate from 2010 to 2015 increased by 6.6% as did the household number by an additional 792. Then from 2015 to 2020, the household poverty rate and the number of households returned to similar statistics as 2010.
Table 7: Total Households in Poverty
City of
Hanford Percent Kings
County
Percent California Percent
Income Below Poverty Level 1,586 10.9% 4,464 18.8% 806,599 12.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.
Table 8: Percent of Households in Poverty Over Time
2010 2015 2020
Income in the Past 12 Months Below Poverty Level 1,487 2,279 1,586 Total Households 12,621 13,062 14,530
Percent of Households in Poverty 11.8% 17.4% 10.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B17019.
Hanford’s Program 3.8 Section 8 Rental Assistance Program objective is to promote Section 8 assistance which extends rental subsidies to extremely -low- and very-low-income households equal to the difference between 30% of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the program . Section 8 assistance is administered by Kings County Housing Authority.
Extremely Low-Income Households
In 2006 state law was amended (Assembly Bill 2634) to add the extremely low-income (ELI) category (up to 30% AMI) to the required analysis of household characteristics and housing growth needs. Due to their limited incomes, these households have the greatest difficulty finding suitable housing at an affordable price.
As Table 9 shows, Hanford consists of about 4.3 % of extremely low-income owners and 19.1% of extremely low-income renters. Extremely low-income households have high rates of overpayment. Owners in other income categories overpay for housing at rates between 67.1% to 7.7%. Renters in other income categories overpay for housing at lower rates apart from households in the >30% to <50% income category. These high
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-12
rates indicate that there is less affordable housing choice for low and extremely low-income households.
Further discussion on overcrowding can be found in the Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk section.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Figure 2: Poverty Status (ACS, 2017-2021) – TRACT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. American Community Survey (ACS), 2017-2021 2 4.03
..._ ........ - 4.02
I
(lJ
>
<(
Grangev ill e
5 ..,. .... :::r
)>
<
rt>
6.03 a
1 12
OQ
.... :::r
)>
< rt>
Grangeville Blvd
15' 0RD
Legend
~ City Boundartes
: : : CA county selection
c::::::::J Census Tract Boundary
Cities in Kings County
c::::::::J Avanal
c::::::::J cacoran
c::::::::J Halford
c::::::::J Lemoore
% of Population ..tiose income in the past 12 months is below poverty le\lel < LU'%
103/o - 20%
- 20:>/o- 30%
- 30'/o - 40%
- >40%
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-22
Table 9: Extremely Low Income Households Overpaying by Tenure
Owner
Occupied Percent Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
Cost Burden > 30% 350 82.4% 1,160 77.9% 1,520 79.4%
Cost Burden >50% 275 64.7% 1,040 69.8% 395 20.6%
Total Extremely Low-
Income Households 425 1,490
1,915
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2014-18
(5-Year Estimates)
Familial Status
A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. Families often prefer single-family homes or condominiums to accommodate children, while single people generally occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors or young adults.
Table 10 displays household composition by community as reported by the Census ACS 2015-2020. Hanford has 18,960 households, just under half of Kings County's total. Family households are prevalent in both areas, forming 76.6% of households in Hanford and 78.3% in Kings County. The City of Hanford has an 8% higher proportion of family households compared to California.
A little under half of family households have children under 18 years. Married or cohabiting couples are a significant portion of households in both regions, though slightly more predominant in Kings County. In Hanford, 30.4% of these couples have children under 18, a bit lower than in Kings County. Single male householders are approximately one-third less common than single female householders. Hanford has a larger share of large households, 5 or more people, compared to California; Large households make up 16% of Hanford’s households while it makes up 13.7% of California’s households. Nonfamily households, which include singles and unrelated individuals living together, constitute a slightly higher percentage in Hanford than in Kings County.
Overall, the average household size in Hanford is 3.00, smaller than Kings County's average. These figures provide insight into the varied household compositions in Hanford, highlighting differences in family size, marital status, and the presence of children compared to the broader Kings County area.
As mentioned before, the City of Hanford consists of three-fourths of family households while non- family households are around one-fourth of households. As seen on Table 11, there are many more family and married couple family households that own than rent. While households that are nonfamily, male householder with no wife present, and female householder with no husband own and rent at similar rates.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Table 10: Household Characteristics
Age Group Hanford Kings County
Total Households 18,960 43,604
Family Households 76.6% 78.30%
With own children under 18 years 40.0% 41.30%
Married/Cohabiting Couples 58.9% 61.20%
With own children under 18 years 30.4% 32.20%
Male Householder, no spouse/partner present 16.5% 16.20% With own children under 18 years 2.8% 2.40%
Living Alone 7.9% 8.30%
Age 65+ 2.8% 2.50%
Female Householder, no spouse/partner present 24.5% 22.60% With own children under 18 years 6.8% 6.80%
Living Alone 9.7% 8.80%
Age 65+ 5.3% 4.70%
Nonfamily Households 23.4% 21.70%
Average Household Size 3.00 3.14
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Tables DP-2, B11012, and S1101
Table 11: Household type by tenure
Household Type
Hanford Kings County
HH % HH %
Total Households 18,960
43,604
Family households: 14,530 76.6% 34,155 78.30%
Owner 9,262 48.9% 18,997 43.60%
Renter 5,268 27.8% 15,158 34.80%
Married-couple family: 9,689 51.1% 23,236 53.30%
Owner 7,013 37% 14,704 33.70%
Renter 2,676 14.1% 8,532 19.60%
Male householder no wife present: 1,440 7.6% 3,653 8.40% Owner 700 3.7% 1,499 3.40%
Renter 740 3.9% 2,154 4.90%
Female householder no husband present: 3,401 17.9% 7,266 16.70% Owner 1,549 8.2% 2,794 6.40%
Renter 1,852 9.8% 4,472 10.30%
Nonfamily households: 4,430 23.4% 9,449 21.70%
Owner 2,091 11.0% 4,371 10.00%
Renter 2,339 12.3% 5,078 11.60%
Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table B25007
I
--- --- --- ----
+
+
+
..
+
+
+
..
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-22
Table 12: Households by Size
City of
Hanford Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total: 18,960 43,604 13,103,114
Family Households: 14,530 76.6% 34,155 78.3% 8,986,666 68.6% 2-Person Household 4,849 25.6% 9,940 22.8% 3,209,170 24.5% 3-Person Household 3,501 18.5% 7,998 18.3% 2,054,635 15.7% 4-Person Household 3,187 16.8% 7,984 18.3% 1,945,127 14.8% 5-Person Household 1,631 8.6% 4,886 11.2% 1,006,126 7.7% 6-Person Household 1,018 5.4% 2,216 5.1% 433,324 3.3%
7-Or-More Person Household 344 1.8% 1,131 2.6% 338,284 2.6% Nonfamily Households: 4,430 23.4% 9,449 21.7% 4,116,448 31.4% 1-Person Household 3,334 17.6% 7,439 17.1% 3,114,819 23.8% 2-Person Household 950 5.0% 1,652 3.8% 774,224 5.9%
3-Person Household 97 0.5% 242 0.6% 135,683 1.0%
4-Person Household 0 0.0% 34 0.1% 59,938 0.5%
5-Person Household 49 0.3% 82 0.2% 19,730 0.2%
6-Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6,805 0.1%
7-Or-More Person Household 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5,249 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B11016
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-22
Table 13: Tenure by Household Size
City of
Hanford Percent Kings
County Percent California Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units 18,960 43,604 13,103,114 Total Large Households (5 or
More Persons) 3,042 16.0% 8,315 19.1% 1,809,518 13.7%
5-Person Household 1,680 8.9% 4,968 11.4% 1,025,856 7.8% 6-Person Household 1,018 5.4% 2,216 5.1% 440,129 3.3%
7-or-More Person Household 344 1.8% 1,131 2.6% 343,533 2.6% Owner-Occupied 11,353 59.9% 23,368 53.6% 7,241,318 55.3% 1-Person Household 1,722 9.1% 3,694 8.5% 1,416,913 10.8% 2-Person Household 3,890 20.5% 7,071 16.2% 2,403,865 18.3% 3-Person Household 2,290 12.1% 4,338 9.9% 1,235,833 9.4% 4-Person Household 1,761 9.3% 4,161 9.5% 1,182,987 9.0% 5-Person Household 943 5.0% 2,443 5.6% 567,528 4.3%
6-Person Household 603 3.2% 1,113 2.6% 238,866 1.8%
7-or-More Person Household 144 0.8% 548 1.3% 195,326 1.5% Renter-Occupied 7,607 40.1% 20,236 46.4% 5,861,796 44.7% 1-Person Household 1,612 8.5% 3,745 8.6% 1,697,906 13.0% 2-Person Household 1,909 10.1% 4,521 10.4% 1,579,529 12.1% 3-Person Household 1,308 6.9% 3,902 8.9% 954,485 7.3%
4-Person Household 1,426 7.5% 3,857 8.8% 822,078 6.3%
5-Person Household 737 3.9% 2,525 5.8% 458,328 3.5%
6-Person Household 415 2.2% 1,103 2.5% 201,263 1.5%
7-or-More Person Household 200 1.1% 583 1.3% 148,207 1.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009
Female Headed Households
Female-headed households, especially for children in single -parent, female-headed households, have special housing needs. State law recognizes that these households face challenges due to a combination of income levels, childcare expenses, and housing availability.
Female headed households without a spouse or partner compromise 24.5% of Hanford, the only jurisdiction that has a higher proportion is the City of Corcoran with 29.2%. Unincorporated Kings County has the lowest share with 18.2%. Hanford and Kings County has higher percentage of female headed households that are living alone than with children or relatives. However, half of female headed households live alone in California while the City of Hanford and Kings County is around 40%, approximately 10% less. Conversely, the City of Hanford and Kings County has around 10% more of female headed households with their own children under 18 years.
In the City of Hanford, there are 1,586 identified households in poverty. Of those 1,586 households, roughly half are Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present. The City of Hanford has a lower percentage, 24.3%, of Female-Headed Households with Children, No Spouse Present in poverty compared to
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
similar households in Kings County, 29.8%, but a higher percentage than California, 21.5%.
As shown on Figure 4, there some areas in the northwest and central Hanford that have 20%-40% of households with children that are headed by a female single parent while the rest of Hanford has under 20% of concentration.
The distribution of single -parent, female- headed households correlate with TCAC/HCD opportunity areas designations, indicating that areas with lower resources and higher segregation and poverty have higher rates of such households.
Notably, across all jurisdictions, the data reveals that a higher percentage of female -headed households are renters rather than homeowners. This trend is indicative of the economic challenges and housing affordability issues faced by these households. This breakdown of household types and tenures, including the specific focus on female-headed households, provides a comprehensive overview of the diverse household compositions and housing situations in these regions, highlighting the need for tailored policy interventions and support services.
Table 14: Female-Headed
Households Percent Percent
Percent
City of
Hanford
City of
Hanford
Kings
County
Kings
County
California California
Female Householder, No
Spouse Or Partner Present 4,653 9,847
3,430,426
Living Alone 1,845 39.7% 3,825 38.8% 1,722,600 50.2%
With Own Children Under 18
Years 1,287 27.7% 2,963 30.1%
615,734
17.9%
With Relatives, No Own
Children Under 18 Years 1,408 30.3% 2,812 28.6%
858,959
25%
With Only Nonrelatives Present 113 2.4% 247 2.5% 233,133 6.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year
Estimates), Table B11012
Seniors
Seniors, defined as 65 years or older, compromise 18.6% of the population. In comparison, that proportion is
21.9% Kings County and 19.4% in California. Typically, senior households have special housing needs primarily due to three concerns – physical disabilities or limitations, limited income, and higher medical costs.
77.8% of Hanford’s seniors own their home which is higher than the general proportion of owners in Hanford,
59.9%. In the last decade, there has not been much of a shift in rates of ownership and renting among seniors in the City of Hanford, Kings County, and California. The median household income in Hanford is $65,974.
Around 42% of seniors make more than the median income which influences housing choice and ownership.
It is important to note that disabilities are most common among senior citizens. Approximately 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability. See further discussion about housing needs for people with disabilities below, in the Disability Rates and Services section.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-24
Table 15: Population by Age Groups (Total)
City of
Hanford
Count
City of
Hanford
Kings
County
Count
Kings
County
California
California
Total: 57,339 151,090 39,346,023
Under 5 Years 4,273 7.5% 11,461 7.6% 2,409,082 6.1%
5 to 17 Years 11,927 7.1% 10,646 7.0% 2,431,647 6.2%
18 to 24 Years 5,338 9.1% 12,534 8.3% 2,597,443 6.6%
25 to 34 Years 8,356 4.7% 6,282 4.2% 1,518,469 3.9%
35 to 44 Years 8,023 2.4% 4,049 2.7% 1,029,603 2.6%
45 to 54 Years 6,754 1.4% 2,572 1.7% 545,047 1.4%
55 to 64 Years 5,632 1.4% 2,456 1.6% 540,872 1.4%
65 to 74 Years 3,958 4.1% 7,544 5.0% 1,608,717 4.1%
75 to 84 Years 2,133 7.0% 13,278 8.8% 3,084,036 7.9%
85 Years And Over 945 7.5% 12,210 8.1% 2,923,877 7.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B01001.
Table 16: Senior Households by Tenure Over Time
Renter-
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
Owner
Occupied
2010 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020
City of Hanford 721.00 2,351.00 829.00 2,584 926 3,246
City of Hanford 23.5% 76.5% 24.3% 75.7% 22.2% 77.8%
Kings County 1,654.00 5,193.00 1,815.00 5,586 2,258 6,917 Kings County 24.2% 75.8% 24.5% 75.5% 24.6% 75.4%
California 605,590.00 1,764,836.00 737,696.00 2,005,660 858,161 2,340,689 California 25.5% 74.5% 26.9% 73.1% 26.8% 73.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007
Figure 3: Senior Households by Income
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19037
Figure 4: Single-Parent Female-Headed Households with Children
4.1%
9.3%
5.8% 5.1% 5.5% 6.4% 7.4%
3.1%
4.3%
6.1%
13.6%
10.7%
5.4%
7.9%
2.7% 2.7%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%Percent of Total Senior Households
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-26
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD), ACS, 2017-2021. Updated: March 2023. 2 ~ -t:
...,
s:t ...
d Grangevi ll e
5 14.&3(
KINGSrCOUN:Y-Y
r'
14.os
r
4.02 1
6.03 Grangeville Blvd
Hanford
00 ....
-::I'
)>
< 11)
l r!gm.'1
CJ Census Tr~t Boundmy
(]l'IC!r. Ill Kt 19~ cninry
C] A•,,e,n-,1
CJ <Nl'.orm
□ 1 1,:111101(1
D i nrn,c ,u!
c::Jo.<o unty
~l:ent ot 0 1i!dr,en in f.e:m,1le H:,u;-eho,kk(, No Spouse, P-<:1l11a Pr~ul I luu~huh.J~
l.E$S tl).)n 20%
- 20% · 10¾
- 411% (,O!il!
- 611% · 1!0~,
- 80% 100%
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Disability Rates and Services
Due to the multitude of possible functional limitations that may present as disabilities, and in the absence of information on external factors that influence disability, surveys like the Census Bureau’s ACS are limited to capturing difficulty with only selected activities. As such, people identified by the ACS as having a disability are, in fact, those who exhibit difficulty with specific functions and may, in the absence of accommodation, have a disability. To capture a variety of characteristics that encompass the definition of disability, the ACS identifies serious difficulty with four basic areas of functioning – hearing, vision, cognition, and ambulation.2
As presented in Table 17, the largest number of Kings County residents with disabilities was in the 18 to 64 years age group or the working age population with 8,357 individuals, which represented 11% of the total age group. However, disabilities were mos t common among senior citizens (65 years and over).
Approximately 41% of total seniors reported one or more types of disability.
At the local level, the proportion of seniors reporting some type of physical disability ranged from 39.4% in the C ity of Hanford. The most common type of disability among seniors was having ambulatory difficulty. Developmental Disabilities as defined by federal law; “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments. • Is manifested before the individual attains age 18.
• Is likely to continue indefinitely.
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity:
a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency. • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
The Census Bureau does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5 percent. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
As seen in Figure 5, people with disabilities are mostly concentrated in the cities and not unincorporated
2 Source: American Community Survey 2013 Subject Definitions. Beginning in 2008, questions on disability represent a conceptual and empirical break from earlier years of the ACS. Hence, the Census Bureau does not recommend any comparisons of disability data to 2007 and earlier ACS disability data, or to disability estimates from the 2000 Census.)
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-28
Kings County. The City of Hanford has rates of 10% - 20% of people with disabilities concentrated mostly on the east side of the city as well as census tract 10.02 that is also identified as an area with High Segregation and Poverty.
Table 17: Household type by tenure
Disability Type by Age
Hanford Kings County
Persons % Persons %
Population under 18 years w/disability 914 5.6% 1,498 3.70% With a hearing difficulty 92 0.6% 193 0.50%
With a vision difficulty 336 2.1% 480 1.20%
With a cognitive difficulty 520 3.2% 890 2.20%
With an ambulatory difficulty 58 0.4% 127 0.30%
With a self-care difficulty 115 0.7% 219 0.50%
Population 18 to 64 years w/disability 3,698 11.1% 8,357 10.70% With a hearing difficulty 542 1.6% 1,632 2.10%
With a vision difficulty 576 1.7% 1,354 1.70%
With a cognitive difficulty 1,602 4.8% 3,009 3.80%
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,858 5.6% 4,087 5.20%
With a self-care difficulty 681 2.0% 1,424 1.80%
With an independent living difficulty 1,693 5.1% 3,094 4.00% Population 65 years and over w/disability 2,693 39.4% 6,179 40.80% With a hearing difficulty 1,320 19.3% 2,657 17.60%
With a vision difficulty 565 8.3% 1,265 8.40%
With a cognitive difficulty 576 8.4% 1,458 9.60%
With an ambulatory difficulty 1,530 22.4% 3,807 25.10% With a self-care difficulty 857 12.5% 1,500 9.90%
With an independent living difficulty 1,303 19.1% 2,659 17.60%
Note: Numbers represent people, not disabilities. Persons may report more than one type of disability Source: Census ACS 2016-2020, Table S1810 and C18108
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community- based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. Kings County is served by the Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC) which is based in Fresno. During 2014, CVRC served approximately 16,200 clients, of which about 900 to 1,000 lived in Kings County (0). CVRC provides diagnosis, evaluation, and case management services. The Kings County Rehabilitation Center in Hanford also offers rehabilitation, vocational and life training, and operates four group homes for mentally and physically handicapped individuals. State and federal law mandate minimum accessibility standards for housing. For example, local governments that use federal housing funds must meet federal accessibility guidelines for new construction and substantial rehabilitation. At least 5% of the units must be accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and an additional 2% must be accessible to persons with sensory impairments. New multi-family
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
housing must be built so that:
• the public and common use portions of such units are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons.
• the doors allowing passage into and within such units can accommodate wheelchairs; and • all units contain adaptive design features. In addition, state law requires all jurisdictions to provide reasonable accommodation in the application of housing policies and regulations The City’s Program 3.12 Housing for Persons with Disabilities objective is to monitor legal requirements and local conditions in order to make necessary updates to local regulations to remove barriers to housing for persons with disabilities.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
1A-30
Figure 5: Population with a Disability
MERCED
COUNTY
MADERA COUNTY
cB
r
SAN BENITO
COUNTY
[ill
Diablo
Range
~ ,. 5252ft
~---,---- ....1.c==. ______ ..;....i.,.~j;lali~a
Legend OD
t:::J CA coun ty
;:, : :• CA coun ty selection
c=:J City Bounda ries
Percen t of population with a disabi lity
< 10%
10% -20%
20% -30%
- 30% -40%
- > 40%
Cities in Kings County
t:::J A venal
t:::J Corcoran
t:::J Hanford
~~
FRESNO COUNTY
I
L__;
llil
KINGS COUNTY
TuleRive-
\
'9
0 :,
~
I ~ ..----'---, O~"""'
t:::,
0)
..0
C
KERN COU_!:::!TY
L..
0)
fu] ~
~ ano
N
5 M iles
10
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT 1A-31
D) RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
To better understand fair housing, HUD uses the designation Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) which requires:
• a non-white population of 50 percent or more in a metropolitan or micropolitan area, or a non-white population of 20 percent or more outside of these areas. • extreme poverty, defined as census tracts with either 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line or with a poverty rate of three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
Of the 13 census tracts in the City of Hanford, only census tract 11 is identified as a R/ECAP.
HCD has a designation called Racial Concentration of Areas of Affluence (RCAA) which is also based on two factors:
• A location quotient based on the percentage of white, non- Hispanic or Latino population in the census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for the COG region. • If the median income for the census tract is greater than 1.5 times the COG median income or State median income, whichever is lower.
In Figure 6, census tract 6.03 and 6.04 are identified as RCAAs. The RCAAs generally coincide with TCAC/HCD highest-resource areas.
As seen on the Median Household Income by Race or Hispanic Origin table, apart from Asian and White Alone Non-Hispanic groups, all other racial groups and Hispanic or Latino of any race earned less than the median household income. The City of Hanford has programs to help ensure fair housing opportunities like Program
3.7 First Time Homebuyer Program that provides financing assistance to very-low-, low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers. The program has been revised to increase the loan limit to $75,000, reduce the interest rate to 3% and extend the term to 30 years. Payment is deferred for the entire loan term. Program 3.8 Section 8 Rental Assistance extends rental subsidies to extremely -low- and very-low-income households equal to the difference between 30% of the monthly income and the allowable rent determined by the program.
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
1A-34
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTION FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Figure 6: Local Racial Demographics
\
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HUD); OBI, 202 2 I
4.02 16.01
QJ
>
~
Grangev ill e
5 ....
.i,. ,..
=1"
)>
<
kson Aye l'1>
1 a
Grali1geville Blvd
Hanford
00 rt
:::r
)>
<
l'1>
Legend
CJ CA-!11s11s had Houudm y
Cities in Kings County
c:] Avenal
C::J C:011:111.111
c:J Hanford
c:J 1omoore
I Cily l:loum.k11 ies
D Cl\. (Oll llty
Racial Segregation/ Integ ration (OSI, 2020) - Tra ct
c:::::J No 1>ara App11rahlP. to / 0 7 I C:P.ni.u~ lraa
Boundaiy
LJ Rac1"1ly Tnt"') ratAC1
I High White Segregotion
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-35 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Figure 7: Local RCAAs
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2015
-2019. Updated: March,2021
Grangeville Blvd Grangevill e
Jackson Ave
Arm ona
.i:-,..
-::r
)>
< r1>
a HAN IS' ORD
co
rt
::r
)>
< r1>
/
(
Legend
C=:J City Bounda1ies
".'. : : :, CA county selection
Cities in Kings County
c:::::J Avenal
c:::::J Corcoran
c:::::J Hanford
c::::J Lemoore
Not a RCAA
- RCAA
1A-36 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
E) DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
The Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources, such as high -paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators in 2017.
It uses economic and education indicators that include the following:
• Percentage of population with income above 200% of federal poverty line • Percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above, • Percentage of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces • Value of owner-occupied units
• Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards • Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards • Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time • Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps help to identify areas within the community that provide stronger access to economic, environmental, or educational opportunities for residents or, conversely, provide more limited access to opportunities. The information from this mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.
Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20.0 percent highest-scoring census tracts in the region.
It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education att ainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. “Moderate resource” areas are in the top
30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low -resource areas are those that score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and poor access to opportunities. The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federa l poverty line ($27,750 annually for a family of four in 2022).
As seen in Figure 8, the City of Hanford in Kings County presents a complex socio- economic landscape, as evidenced by its mixed resource distribution in TCAC and HCD Opportunity Maps. The north and northwest portions of the city is designated as Highest Resource and High Resource. The south and southeast portions of the city is designated as Low Resource and some Moderate Resource. Additionally, there is one census tract that is split b y Highway 198 that is designated as High Segregation and Poverty.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Hanford faces significant challenges in bridging spatial economic disparities. These disparities necessitate nuanced policy interventions aimed at promoting equitable development. The high- resource zones offer potential for economic growth, which could be strategically leveraged to benefit the entire city, particularly the lower-resource and segregated areas. Additionally, the surrounding unincorporated low-resource areas further complicate the regional development scenario, calling for collaborative efforts.
SECTION 1A-1: LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
1A-38 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Figure 8: COG Geography TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2023
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Updated Jan 2023. 2 [7 D
a
12 ~ <t ~·F.,, ......... ; .. ~
! :::• ( ;,, 0<:.mty •• 1 .. ,;,,.,
c::::::J ~ ! 1'1~11!- ll~ !:bJ \ :l:.i\ •
c, - ,. <i· ~-> r,,. ... ,~
c:::::J .•.~11,1
c::::::J ~ll'IXI._,~
i=J •~11l.:t':I
c::::::J .. ,,,,,,,, ..
- ~4hc:I Kc::otur.:.:.
- -1; 11 ~- -
l4h SC.:.r»:t lC<\ s. l'-l'•cr.v
·,11;:lt\{l: lr "-111::1a'lt C!Qt:
APPENDIX 4: CITY OF HANFORD
1A-39 KINGS MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT | JULY 2024 | DRAFT
Transit Mobility
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to navigate the community and region daily to access services, employment, schools, and other resources. Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.
The need to plan for and address the mobility needs of the County’s growing population. Public Transportation services are available to people with lower incomes, seniors, and persons with disabilities through the Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) system, overseen by the Kings County Area Public Transit Agency (KCAPTA) and through the City of Corcoran’s transit system, Corcoran Area Transit (CAT). Kings Area Regional Transit (KART) is Kings County’s public transportation provider. KART provides public transit service Monday through Friday and limited service on Saturdays. KART provides transportation services to the cities of Armona, Avenal, Corcor an, Grangeville, Hardwick, Hanford, Kettleman C ity, Laton, Lemoore, and Stratford. KART Paratransit (origin to destination) is available to eligible certified ADA passengers. In addition, KART provides regular transportation services to Fresno and Visalia Monday through Friday. All KART bus routes begi n and end at the KART Terminal located at 504 W. 7th Street Hanford, California, west of the AMTRAK station in Downtown Hanford.
AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at city, county, and regional levels.
AllTransit scores geographic regions (e.g., cities, counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSAs]) on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being complete transit connectivity. Figure 1A-8 depicts Kings County’s AllTransit Performance score, including metrics representing average household transit access. City of Hanford’s overall score is 4.0, demonstrating “low” connectivity. It is important to note that this score is for Kings County as a whole, including incorporated areas, as AllTransit does not provide a score just for the unincorporated county. Hanford’s is consistent with comparable counties, which are typified by rural and semi-rural communities. However, the AllTransit methodology, which determines scores according to an “average” household, may not fully represent transit availability in the unincorporated areas, as the estimate is an average of both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
As is shown in Figure 9, many high qualities transit stops in terms of facilities, accessibility and frequency of services are concentrated in the city Hanford while they seem to be lacking in the other cities and unincorporated areas.
It’s also evident that the connectivity is focused on moving people within cities rather than between cities.
Most unincorporated areas in the central areas of Kings County are not served by transit, except for the Hanford area. Based on the information in the Kings County Tr ansit Development Plan 2021 document, Kings County faces challenges in providing comprehensive transit services, especially in rural areas. The report identifies gaps in service and highlights the difficulty of connecting transit-dependent residents living in remote areas to services in larger communities.